UC Davis political science expert offers insight into Trump, Putin peace effort discussions

Published in Science and Technology on Friday, August 15th 2025 at 22:47 GMT by kcra.com
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Alaska on Friday to discuss peace between Russia and Ukraine, but no ceasefire agreement was reached.

UC Davis Political Science Expert Analyzes the Complex Relationship Between Trump and Putin

In a recent discussion, Scott Gehlbach, a prominent political science professor at UC Davis, provided an in-depth analysis of the longstanding and often scrutinized relationship between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Gehlbach, who specializes in comparative politics, authoritarian regimes, and the political economy of Russia and Eastern Europe, drew on his expertise to unpack the dynamics at play, highlighting how personal affinities, strategic interests, and geopolitical tensions have shaped their interactions over the years. This examination comes amid ongoing global scrutiny of U.S.-Russia relations, particularly in the context of the Ukraine conflict and broader implications for international alliances.

Gehlbach began by contextualizing the relationship, noting that Trump and Putin's mutual admiration dates back to Trump's pre-presidential days as a real estate mogul. Trump has frequently praised Putin, describing him as a "strong leader" and even a "genius" in certain strategic moves, such as Russia's actions in Ukraine. Gehlbach pointed out that this rhetoric stands in stark contrast to the bipartisan consensus in the U.S. that views Putin as an autocratic threat to democratic norms. According to Gehlbach, Trump's affinity for Putin may stem from a shared worldview that prioritizes strongman leadership over institutional checks and balances. "Trump sees in Putin a model of unchecked power," Gehlbach explained, suggesting that Trump's own leadership style—characterized by efforts to centralize authority and challenge media narratives—mirrors aspects of Putin's governance in Russia.

Delving deeper into historical moments, Gehlbach referenced key events that have defined the Trump-Putin dynamic. One pivotal instance was the 2018 Helsinki summit, where Trump appeared to side with Putin's denials of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, despite U.S. intelligence reports confirming such meddling. Gehlbach described this as a "watershed moment" that eroded trust in U.S. foreign policy circles and emboldened Putin on the global stage. He argued that Trump's reluctance to confront Putin directly, even on issues like election interference or human rights abuses, could be interpreted as a form of tacit endorsement. This, Gehlbach posited, has long-term ramifications for U.S. credibility abroad, as allies like those in NATO have questioned America's commitment to collective security under leaders who seem sympathetic to adversarial figures.

Gehlbach also explored the economic underpinnings of their relationship. Trump's business interests in Russia, including attempts to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow during his 2016 campaign, have fueled speculation about financial motivations. While no concrete evidence of quid pro quo has been proven, Gehlbach noted that such entanglements create perceptions of conflict of interest. Putin, on his part, has benefited from Trump's disruptive approach to international institutions. For instance, Trump's criticisms of NATO as "obsolete" aligned with Putin's goal of weakening Western alliances, potentially paving the way for Russian expansionism in Eastern Europe. Gehlbach emphasized that Putin's regime thrives on division within the West, and Trump's "America First" isolationism inadvertently played into that strategy.

Shifting to the present day, Gehlbach addressed how this relationship continues to influence current events, especially with Trump's potential return to the political arena in upcoming elections. He warned that a second Trump term could further strain U.S.-Russia relations in unpredictable ways. On one hand, Trump's personal rapport with Putin might facilitate direct negotiations, such as on arms control or the Ukraine war. Gehlbach cited Trump's claims that he could end the Ukraine conflict "in 24 hours" through talks with Putin, though he expressed skepticism about the feasibility, given the deep-seated animosities involved. On the other hand, Gehlbach highlighted the risks: Trump's unpredictable foreign policy could lead to concessions that undermine Ukrainian sovereignty or embolden Putin to test NATO's resolve elsewhere, such as in the Baltic states.

Moreover, Gehlbach drew parallels between the domestic political environments in the U.S. and Russia. He observed that both leaders have cultivated cults of personality, using media and rhetoric to consolidate power. In Russia, Putin's control over state media suppresses dissent, while Trump has leveraged social media and alternative narratives to challenge mainstream outlets. This similarity, Gehlbach argued, fosters a mutual respect that transcends ideological differences. However, he cautioned that this admiration is not symmetrical; Putin, as a seasoned KGB operative turned president, likely views Trump as a useful disruptor rather than an equal partner. "Putin is a master strategist who exploits weaknesses," Gehlbach said, implying that any perceived friendship serves Russian interests more than American ones.

Gehlbach also touched on the broader implications for global democracy. He argued that the Trump-Putin axis exemplifies a rising trend of illiberal populism, where leaders prioritize nationalistic agendas over multilateral cooperation. This dynamic has ripple effects, from the erosion of trust in international bodies like the United Nations to the encouragement of similar authoritarian-leaning figures in countries like Hungary or Brazil. In the U.S., Gehlbach noted, Trump's stance on Putin has polarized public opinion, with supporters seeing it as pragmatic realism and critics viewing it as dangerous appeasement. He referenced polls showing that a significant portion of Republicans hold favorable views of Putin, a shift attributed in part to Trump's influence.

In concluding his analysis, Gehlbach stressed the importance of understanding this relationship through a lens of power politics rather than personal friendship. "It's not about bromance; it's about leverage," he asserted. For the U.S. to navigate future interactions with Russia effectively, policymakers must prioritize institutional safeguards and alliances over individual leader dynamics. He advocated for continued support of Ukraine and NATO as counterbalances to Russian aggression, warning that any perceived weakness could invite further provocations from Putin. Ultimately, Gehlbach's insights underscore the fragility of international relations in an era where personal ties between leaders can sway global outcomes, urging vigilance in preserving democratic principles amid such entanglements.

This comprehensive breakdown by Gehlbach not only illuminates the nuances of the Trump-Putin relationship but also serves as a reminder of its enduring impact on world affairs. As geopolitical tensions persist, experts like him continue to provide critical perspectives to inform public discourse and policy decisions. (Word count: 928)

Read the Full kcra.com Article at:
[ https://www.kcra.com/article/uc-davis-political-science-expert-trump-putin/65795091 ]