ІНСАЙДЕР УКРАЇНА

The financial leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies meet in Buenos Aires this weekend for the first time since long-simmering trade tensions burst into the open when China and the United States put tariffs on $34 billion of each other’s goods.

The United States will seek to persuade Japan and the European Union to join it in taking a more aggressive stance against Chinese trade practices at the G-20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank presidents, according to a senior U.S. Treasury Department official who spoke on condition on anonymity.

But those efforts will be complicated by frustration over U.S. steel and aluminum import tariffs on the EU and Canada. Both responded with retaliatory tariffs in an escalating trade conflict that has shaken markets and threatens global growth.

“U.S. trading partners are unlikely to be in a conciliatory mood,” said Eswar Prasad, international trade professor at Cornell University and former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China Division. “[U.S.] hostile actions against long-standing trading partners and allies have weakened its economic and geopolitical influence.”

At the close of the last G-20 meeting in Argentina in March, the financial leaders representing 75 percent of world trade and 85 percent of gross domestic product released a joint statement that rejected protectionism and urged “further dialogue,” to little concrete effect.

Since then, the United States and China have slapped tariffs on $34 billion of each other’s imports and U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened further tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods unless Beijing agrees to change its intellectual property practices and high-technology industrial subsidy plans.

Trump has said the U.S. tariffs aim to close the $335 billion annual U.S. trade deficit with China.

U.S. Treasury Minister Steven Mnuchin has no plans for a bilateral meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Buenos Aires, a U.S official said this week.

Growth concerns

Rising trade tensions have led to concerns within the Japanese government over currency volatility, said a senior Japanese G-20 official who declined to be named. Such volatility could prompt an appreciation in the safe-haven yen and threaten Japanese exports.

Trump’s metals tariffs prompted trade partners to retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. goods ranging from whiskey to motorcycles. The United States has said it will challenge those tariffs at the World Trade Organization.

The EU finance ministers signed a joint text last week that will form their mandate for this weekend’s meeting, criticizing “unilateral” U.S. trade actions, Reuters reported. The ministers will stress that trade restrictions “hurt everyone,” a German official said.

In a briefing note prepared for the G-20 participants, the International Monetary Fund said if all of Trump’s threatened tariffs — and equal retaliation — went into effect, the global economy could lose up to 0.5 percent of GDP, or $430 billion, by 2020.

Global growth also may have peaked at 3.9 percent for 2018 and 2019, and downside risks have risen due to the tariff spat, the IMF said.

“While all countries will ultimately be worse off in a trade conflict, the U.S. economy is especially vulnerable,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde wrote in a blog post. “Policymakers can use this G-20 meeting to move past

self-defeating tit-for-tat tariffs.”

Trade is not on host country Argentina’s published agenda for the July 21-22 ministerial, which focuses on the “future of work” and infrastructure finance. But it will likely be discussed during a slot devoted to risks facing the global

economy, much as in March, according to an Argentine official involved in G-20 preparations, who asked not be named.
…

London’s new Brexit minister said he was confident he could reach a deal, on his first trip to Brussels on Thursday as the EU warned business to get ready for Britain crashing out of the bloc without agreed terms to cushion the economic disruption.

Brexit campaigner Dominic Raab, appointed to the government last week after his predecessor quit over Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposals to stay close to EU trading rules, said Britain was ramping up preparations for a “no deal” but focused above all on selling her ideas to EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier.

The resignation of his predecessor David Davis and others, and May’s battles in parliament with pro- and anti-Brexit wings of her own Conservative Party, have led Brussels to wonder whether London is capable of agreeing any deal this year to avoid chaos when it leaves in March.

That, the EU’s executive European Commission insisted on Thursday, was not the reason for its warning on stepping up preparedness for a “no deal” or “cliff edge” Brexit.

Raab said Britain was on track and he would bring new “energy, vigor and vim” to talks as they get down to the wire to find a deal before EU leaders meet at a summit in October.

“We’ve only got 12 weeks really left to nail down the details of the agreement, so I set out our proposals,” Raab said after meeting Barnier. “I’m sure in good faith, if that energy and that ambition is reciprocated, as I’m confident it will be, we will get there.”

EU officials and diplomats still think some kind of deal, including a 21-month status quo transition period to allow further talks, is more likely than not, if only because the cost for both sides would be so high.

The International Monetary Fund said on Thursday EU countries would suffer long-term damage equivalent to about 1.5 percent of annual economic output if Britain leaves without a free trade deal.

“While the EU is working day and night for a deal ensuring an orderly withdrawal, the UK’s withdrawal will undoubtedly cause disruption, for example in business supply chains, whether or not there is a deal,” the Commission said in a statement.

“Preparedness is not a mistrust in the negotiations,” an EU official added, saying big firms seemed to be advancing in their plans but smaller companies which had never traded outside the single market before would face challenges in their paperwork.

A senior British regulator also warned Britain’s banks and insurers on Thursday to plan for a “hard” Brexit.

Barnier briefs

Barnier is due to report back on his meeting with Raab to ministers from the other 27 EU states on Friday.

Ahead of talks with Raab, Barnier said the EU was offering an “unprecedented” partnership on future trade relations and that maintaining a close partnership on security was “more important than ever given the geopolitical context.”

EU officials and diplomats have welcomed last week’s proposals as a welcome if overdue starting point for negotiations on an outline of post-Brexit relations that is to accompany a binding treaty on the immediate aspects of withdrawal. But Barnier will also be posing many questions on just how some issues, notably around customs and sharing regulatory standards would work.

Getting an outline on those is vital to solving the biggest obstacle to the urgent withdrawal treaty — how to avoid customs and other friction on the new EU-UK land border in Ireland.

Dublin and London say they are committed to avoiding a “hard border” but the EU is also determined to avoid creating a huge loophole in the external frontier of its single market and customs union.

With time running short and little sign of May quelling the revolts in her party, there has been renewed discussion among Brussels diplomats and officials about whether a deal can be done by October, or at the latest December, to allow parliaments on both sides to ratify a withdrawal treaty before March 29.

“When I see the dynamics in Westminster, I don’t think that there is, at this stage, a majority for whatever type of thing we could ever agree with them,” one senior EU official said.

However, while EU leaders have made no secret of being ready to extend the deadline for a few weeks, there are reservations about any longer delay, short of a U-turn in Britain and a call from London to call Brexit off.

Among problems for delaying Brexit is a European Parliament election in late May 2019 which would create questions over when  and how it could ratify a late Brexit deal, assuming Britain does not elect members to the new legislature.
…

The U.S. State Department denounced Russia’s request to question several U.S. citizens in exchange for allowing a U.S. investigator to interrogate 12 Russians indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for their efforts to derail the 2016 presidential election. Among the Americans the Kremlin wants to interrogate is a former U.S. ambassador to Russia. The White House said Wednesday the president has not ruled out allowing Russian officials to question Americans. VOA’S Zlatica Hoke reports.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump is calling on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to release an American pastor who has been in prison for two years awaiting trial on terrorism charges.

A Turkish court Wednesday ordered Andrew Brunson to remain in jail until his next hearing on October 12. Brunson was arrested in 2016 and charged with supporting followers of U.S.-based Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen, who has been blamed by Ankara for the failed 2016 coup against President Erdogan. Brunson is also accused of assisting the outlawed Kurdish insurgent group PKK.

Trump called Brunson’s continued detention “a total disgrace” in a post on Twitter hours after the court hearing. “He has been held hostage far too long,” the president tweeted. “@RT_Erdogan should do something to free this wonderful Christian husband & father. He has done nothing wrong, and his family needs him!”

Trump reportedly raised the pastor’s case in a telephone call Monday with his Turkish counterpart. 

Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, Philip Kosnett, U.S. charge d’affaires in Turkey, expressed disappointment with the decision.

“I’ve read the indictment; I’ve attended three hearings. I don’t believe that there is any indication that Pastor Brunson is guilty of any sort of criminal or terrorist activity,” Kosnett said. “Our government remains deeply concerned about his status, as well as the status of other American citizens and local Turkish employees of the U.S. diplomatic mission who have been detained under the state of emergency rules.”

Kosnett, speaking before the court decision, had warned of the damaging effect of the case on U.S.-Turkish relations.

In Washington, a State Department official said the United States has been closely engaged with the Turkish government on Brunson’s case and repeated calls for his release.

“We have seen no credible evidence that Mr. Brunson is guilty of these crimes. The case against him is built on anonymous accusations and speculation,” the official told VOA in a statement. “We strongly believe that he is innocent, and we call on the Turkish government to resolve his case in a timely, transparent, and fair manner.”

Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who is chairman of the Helsinki Commission, an independent U.S. government agency that monitors democracy and human rights in Europe, said, “The cruelty of today’s decision is astonishing.

“By extending Pastor Brunson’s indefinite detention and setting his next trial date for mid-October, the Turkish government has declared its intention to keep this innocent man in jail past the two-year anniversary of his arrest without conviction or any credible evidence against him. There is no room in NATO for hostage-taking. Pastor Brunson should be freed immediately,” Wicker added.

The 50-year-old Brunson has lived in Turkey for more than two decades. The North Carolina native worked as a pastor serving a small Protestant congregation in the western Turkish City of Izmir, close to the town of Aliaga, where he is now on trial. Brunson has spent much of his incarceration in solitary confinement. Brunson describes the charges against him as “shameful and disgusting.”

Last month, U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jeanne Shaheen also pressed for Brunson’s release in a meeting with Erdogan in Ankara.

The U.S. Congress is threatening to introduce sanctions on Turkey if the pastor is not released. 

Several members of Congress have accused Turkey of hostage taking by seeking to use Brunson as diplomatic leverage. Adding to Congress’ anger, three local employees of U.S. diplomatic missions in Turkey are also being held on terrorism charges. Ankara strongly denies allegations of hostage taking, maintaining that the cases are a matter for the courts. 

Observers warn the continued detention of Brunson now increases the likelihood of Washington imposing measures against Ankara.

“It’s (the Brunson case) very important because it’s already an obstacle and sticking point between the countries, having prompted the discussion about sanctions against Turkey,” political columnist Semih Idiz of Al-Monitor said. “Senators are coming to Turkey and Trump referring to Brunson as a hostage. Tensions will increase, calls for sanctions against Turkey will increase, and the downward spiral in relations will continue (if the trial continues).”

The blocking of the U.S. sale to Turkey of a new F-35 fighter is a move that has been threatened by Congress. 

Turkish financial markets fell heavily on the news of Brunson’s ongoing detention. The falls reversed earlier gains stoked by the expectation of the pastor’s release and the hope of improved U.S.-Turkish relations.

Erdogan and his advisers have linked the Brunson case to calls to extradite Gulen in connection with the 2016 coup attempt. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Sunday U.S. authorities were cooperating in investigating Gulen and his followers. Observers, however, say the detention of Brunson suggests Ankara could be looking for more concessions from Washington.

Erdogan could release Brunson under the presidential power to free jailed foreign citizens if it is deemed to be in the country’s national interest.

The ongoing jailing of Brunson comes as analysts point out the two countries were making tentative progress on a number of disputes. In the past few months, there have been intense diplomatic efforts to resolve differences over Syria and Ankara’s controversial purchase of a Russian S-400 missile system. Observers warn if Congress carries out its threat to sanction Turkey over Brunson’s jailing, it will likely add to broader diplomatic tensions.
…

The White House and the State Department are at odds over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to allow the U.S. access to Russians accused of election meddling in return for interviews of Americans accused by the Kremlin of unspecified crimes.

Even as the White House said the offer, made by Putin to President Donald Trump at their summit in Helsinki on Monday, was under consideration, the State Department called Russia’s allegations against the Americans “absurd,” suggesting that any questioning of them would not be countenanced by the U.S. The Russian claims against the Americans, including former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, relate to allegations of fraud and corruption.

WATCH: State Department Denounces Russia’s Demand to Interrogate Americans, Trump Does Not

“The overall assertions that have come out of the Russian government are absolutely absurd: the fact that they want to question 11 American citizens and the assertions that the Russian government is making about those American citizens,” spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters.

McFaul tweeted Wednesday: “I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy US indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented by Putin.”

Nauert noted that a U.S. federal court had rejected Russia’s charges regarding British businessman and vocal Kremlin critic Bill Browder. She said Russian authorities already know the U.S. position. Browder was a driving force behind a U.S. law targeting Russian officials over human rights abuses.

“We do not stand by those assertions that the Russian government makes,” Nauert said. “The prosecutor general in Russia is well aware that the United States has rejected Russian allegations in this regard. … We continue to urge Russian authorities to work with the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue those in Russia who in fact perpetrated the fraudulent scheme that Russia refers to that targeted not only Mr. Browder, but also his company and … the Russian people as a whole.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray was similarly dismissive. Speaking Wednesday at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, he said Putin’s offer was “not high on our list of investigative techniques.”

Wray and Nauert’s comments stood in sharp contrast to those of White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, who held open the possibility that what Trump called “an incredible offer” is being weighed.

“The president’s going to meet with his team, and we’ll let you know when we have an announcement on that,” she said, adding that neither Trump nor anyone else in the administration had committed to accepting the offer.
…

The European Union’s antitrust regulator fined Google a record $5 billion Wednesday for illegally exploiting the powerful market share position of its Android smartphone system.

The EU antitrust regulator concluded that Google, whose Android system operates more than 80 percent of the world’s smartphones, abused its dominant position to promote its own apps and services, especially the company’s search engine.

The regulator ordered Google to end the illegal practices within 90 days or face more penalties. Google can appeal the decision.

The decision was made Wednesday in a meeting in Brussels.

 
…

Estonia was the one of the first countries to suffer a large-scale cyber-attack – and most experts say Russia was behind the 2007 strike. The Baltic country now hosts NATO’s Center of Excellence on cyber security, aimed at sharing best practices among members and allies. Japan has just joined the center, as it fears the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo could be targeted. Henry Ridgwell traveled to Tallinn and has this report.
…

As grids of lights flash red and sirens wail, teams of cyber-defense specialists snap into action as power networks and water-purification plants come under attack. They are the best in their field – and in this exercise, they are competing against one another.

Operation Locked Shields, a so-called live-fire cyber exercise, is hosted annually by NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence or CCDCOE in Estonia, is aimed at testing members’ and allies’ abilities to see off the latest hacks, malware and cyber interference.

“It is about friendly competition. But what makes it the world’s biggest is first of all the number of nations who are contributing to it. We then bring the ‘crème de la crème’ of all nations together to match each other and also learn to cooperate with each other,” said Siim Alatalu, a senior researcher at the center.

Estonia was the one of the first countries to suffer a large-scale cyber-attack back in 2007 – and most experts say Russia was the culprit. The Baltic country is now at the forefront of NATO’s cyber-security efforts. In a sign of its growing global reputation, Japan has just joined the CCDCOE, hoping to glean valuable skills and information to help defend the upcoming 2020 Olympic Games from cyber-attacks.

While Operation Locked Shields is a practice run, the threat is very real, says Alatalu. “Everything is technology dependent. And therefore everything could be hacked.”

In the winters of 2015 and 2016, Ukraine suffered hacking attacks on its power network, shutting down systems for several hours. Kyiv blamed Russia – a charge Moscow denied.

As well as hacking, governments face the growing problem of disinformation: using the web to disrupt democracies. Analyst Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab spoke to VOA at last week’s NATO summit.

“If you look at the Russian interference operation in the U.S., as far as we know it started in April 2014 and it was still going in October 2017 when it shut down,” said Nimmo. “So they’ve had a three-and-a-half-year operation running, which included a reported 100 people, several thousand accounts on social media, over 50,000 bot accounts amplifying it. This was a big, big operation, which was then further amplified by state propaganda like RT [Russia Today] and Sputnik.”

So is NATO doing enough to counter these threats?

“They appreciate them more than they did two years ago and you can see that from the summit declaration itself. For the first time, it mentions disinformation as a specific threat and as part of a bigger picture of hybrid warfare,” said Nimmo.

Since 2014, NATO’s core principle of collective self-defense, Article 5, can be invoked in the event of a cyberattack on one member. The response could include sanctions, cyber responses, or even the use of conventional forces.

While that may seem a remote possibility, NATO’s Secretary-General has warned that a cyberattack could be as destructive as a conventional military strike.
…

The European Union’s enlargement commissioner has arrived in Macedonia to formally announce the start of preparations for the Balkan country to open accession talks with the bloc next year.

Johannes Hahn on Tuesday congratulated Macedonia for recently signing a deal with Greece resolving a decades-old dispute over the country’s name. He urged the public to vote in favor of the deal, which changes the name to North Macedonia, in a referendum this fall.

“This sets a strong example for others in the region to strengthen good neighborly relations,” said Hahn.

The deal was key to allowing Macedonia to start the EU accession process. The bloc’s member states agreed last month to open membership talks with Albania and Macedonia next year if the two nations continue with reform progress. Macedonia must deliver results in overhauling its judiciary, fighting corruption and promoting media freedom.

Hahn then went to neighboring Albania, welcoming its “first promising results of reform priorities” in the court system and urging “further tangible results in the fight against corruption.”

In both countries Hahn launched the screening process, a detailed exercise conducted by the European Commission “to prepare your country to start negotiations in June 2019.” It helps the countries to understand EU laws and enables the Commission to evaluate their preparedness to take on the obligations of EU membership.

Earlier this month NATO invited Macedonia to start membership talks to become its 30th member. That is also dependent on condition it finally completes the name deal with Greece.
…

Winning the soccer World Cup has turned the French, long-time pessimists, into optimists, but has not boosted President Emmanuel Macron’s popularity, a survey showed on Tuesday.

Some 62 percent of the French polled by the Odoxa polling institute on July 16, the day after the French team’s thrilling 4-2 defeat of Croatia in Moscow, said they were now optimistic about the future.

In March 2016, when Odoxa last asked the question, 53 percent of them were “pessimistic.”

Some 82 percent of the French think Les Bleus’ victory will boost national pride, 74 percent of them think it will improve France’s image abroad, and 39 percent of them said it will have a positive impact on their own morale, Odoxa said.

However, France’s second World Cup win after the 1998 victory on home soil has not lifted Macron’s popularity, despite pictures of the 40-year old punching the air in celebration of the team’s prowess on the pitch going viral on social media.

Only 39 percent of those polled by Odoxa said Macron was a good president, a 2 percentage point decrease since Odoxa’s last poll on June 26.

“The 2018 victory will not have had the same impact on Emmanuel Macron’s popularity that the 1998 had on Jacques Chirac’s,” Odoxa president Gael Sliman said in a note.

“He may have been found sincerely likable in the victory’s festive atmosphere, but it visibly doesn’t change anything to expectations towards him on the economic and social front,” he said.

Nonetheless, the victory is good news for the French president, Sliman said, boosting morale ahead of belt-tightening measures expected in September’s budget bill.

“It’s the ideal situation for the president, who will unveil reforms that won’t necessarily be popular,” Sliman said. “Doing it while the French have their rose-tinted glasses on will be an asset.”
…

German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer faced accusations on Tuesday of having illegally deported a suspected Islamist militant who once served as Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard just one day after a court said he should be allowed to stay in Germany.

German authorities deported the man, identified only as Sami A., to his native Tunisia last Friday despite previous concerns that he might be tortured back home and despite the administrative court verdict a day before the deportation.

German opposition politicians criticized Seehofer’s interior ministry for its handling of the case.

“You don’t bend the rule book,” Greens party leader Robert Habeck told ZDF broadcaster on Tuesday.

Wolfgang Kubicki, deputy leader of the opposition Free Democratic Party (FDP), told broadcaster rbb: “If courts can no longer rely on the authorities telling them the truth, then things look dark in Germany.”

Sami A. told the best-selling Bild daily he had been told the decision to deport him had come “from the very top and I cannot do anything about it.”

The interior ministry said that while it was politically important to deport the suspect quickly, it had not pressured authorities in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia to accelerate the procedure. Deportations are usually a matter for individual states in Germany.

Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees said it had only learned about the administrative court’s ruling when the suspect was already on the flight bound for Tunisia.

Hard line

Seehofer, from the Bavarian sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, takes a hard line on immigration and asylum issues and almost toppled the government earlier this month in a dispute over migrant policy.

Sami A. applied unsuccessfully for asylum in Germany in 2006. He was accused of undergoing military and ideological training in 2000 at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and of being at different times a bodyguard for bin Laden, leader of the group. He denied the allegations but was arrested in June.

A spokesman at Tunisia’s justice ministry told Bild the suspect only held Tunisian citizenship. He also rejected suggestions the man could be tortured in Tunisia.

Seehofer also came under fire last week when an Afghan man deported to Kabul from Germany committed suicide after returning home.

Parliament has opened an investigation into the suspected exploitation by Seehofer of his ministerial position for presenting his ‘Master Plan for migration’ to his Christian Social Union (CSU) last month for party purposes.

An RTL/N-TV survey on Monday showed Seehofer’s popularity sliding ahead of an October regional election in Bavaria. Nearly two thirds of Germans thought he should quit as interior minister, it said.
…

A man who identified himself as a working journalist was escorted out a room where a joint press conference in Helsinki between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin was scheduled to be held. Sam Husseini had received press credentials for the event through U.S.-based magazine The Nation. Husseini was holding up a sign that read, “Nuclear weapons test ban.”
…

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                           July 16, 2018

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP

AND PRESIDENT PUTIN OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

IN JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE

Presidential Palace

Helsinki, Finland

5:10 P.M. EEST

     PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  Distinguished Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen: Negotiations with the President of the United States Donald Trump took place in a frank and businesslike atmosphere.  I think we can call it a success and a very fruitful round of negotiations.  

We carefully analyzed the current status — the present and the future of the Russia-United States relationship; key issues of the global agenda.  It’s quite clear to everyone that the bilateral relationship are going through a complicated stage, and yet those impediments — the current tension, the tense atmosphere — essentially have no solid reason behind it.  

The Cold War is a thing of past.  The era of acute ideological confrontation of the two countries is a thing of the remote past, is a vestige of the past.  The situation in the world changed dramatically.  

Today, both Russia and the United States face a whole new set of challenges.  Those include a dangerous maladjustment of mechanisms for maintaining international security and stability, regional crises, the creeping threats of terrorism and transnational crime.  It’s the snowballing problems in the economy, environmental risks, and other sets of challenges.  We can only cope with these challenges if we join the ranks and work together.  Hopefully, we will reach this understanding with our American partners.  

Today’s negotiations reflected our joint wish — our joint wish with President Trump to redress this negative situation and bilateral relationship, outline the first steps for improving this relationship to restore the acceptable level of trust, and going back to the previous level of interaction on all mutual interests issues.

As major nuclear powers, we bear special responsibility for maintaining international security.  And it made it vital — and we mentioned this during the negotiations — it’s crucial that we fine-tune the dialogue on strategic stability and global security and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  We submitted our American colleagues a note with a number of specific suggestions.

We believe it necessary to work together further to interact on the disarmament agenda, military, and technical cooperation.  This includes the extension of the Strategic Offensive Arms Limitation Treaty.  It’s a dangerous situation with the global American anti-missile defense system; it’s the implementation issues with the INF treaty; and, of course, the agenda of non-placement of weapons in space.

We favor the continued cooperation in counterterrorism and maintaining cybersecurity.  And I’d like to point out specifically that our special services are cooperating quite successfully together.  The most recent example is their operational cooperation within the recently concluded World Football Cup.

In general, the contacts among the special services should be put to a system-wide basis — should be brought to a systemic framework.  I recall — I reminded President Trump about the suggestion to reestablish the working group on antiterrorism.

We also mentioned a plethora of regional crises.  It’s not always that our postures dovetail exactly.  And yet, the overlapping and mutual interests abound.  We have to look for points of contact and interact closer in a variety of international fora.  

Clearly, we mentioned the regional crisis; for instance, Syria.  As far as Syria is concerned, the task of establishing peace and reconciliation in this country could be the first showcase example of this successful joint work.  Russia and the United States apparently can act proactively and take — assume the leadership on this issue, and organize the interaction to overcome humanitarian crisis, and help Syrian refugees to go back to their homes.

In order to accomplish this level of successful cooperation in Syria, we have all the required components.  Let me remind you that both Russian and American military have acquired a useful experience of coordination of their action, established the operational channels of communication which permitted to avoid dangerous incidents and unintentional collisions in the air and in the ground.

Also, crushing terrorists in the southwest of Syria — the south of Syria — should be brought to the full compliance with the Treaty of 1974 about the separation of forces — about separation of forces of Israel and Syria.  This will bring peace to Golan Heights and bring a more peaceful relationship between Syria and Israel, and also to provide security of the state of Israel.

Mr. President paid special attention to the issue during today’s negotiations, and I would like to confirm that Russia is interested in this development, and this will act accordingly.  Thus far, we will make a step toward creating a lasting peace in compliance with the respective resolutions of Security Council, for instance, the Resolution 338.  

We’re glad that the Korean Peninsula issue is starting to resolve.  To a great extent, it was possible thanks to the personal engagement of President Trump, who opted for dialogue instead of confrontation.

You know, we also mentioned our concern about the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA.  Well, the U.S. — our U.S. counterparts are aware of our posture.  Let me remind you that thanks to the Iranian nuclear deal, Iran became the most controlled country in the world; it submitted to the control of IAEA.  It effectively ensures the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program and strengthens the nonproliferation regime.

While we discussed the internal Ukrainian crisis, we paid special attention to the bona fide implementation of Minsk Agreements by Kiev.  At the same time, the United States could be more decisive in nudging the Ukrainian leadership and encourage it to work actively on this.  We paid more attention to economic ties and economic cooperation.  It’s clear that both countries — the businesses of both countries are interested in this.

The American delegation was one of the largest delegations in the St. Petersburg economic forum.  It featured over 500 representatives from American businesses.  We agreed — me and President Trump — we agreed to create the high-level working group that would bring together captains of Russian and American business.  After all, entrepreneurs and businessmen know better how to articulate this successful business cooperation.  We’ll let them think and make their proposals and their suggestions in this regard.

Once again, President Trump mentioned the issue of the so-called interference of Russia when the American elections, and I had to reiterate things I said several times, including during our personal contacts, that the Russian state has never interfered and is not going to interfere into internal American affairs, including the election process.

Any specific material, if such things arise, we are ready to analyze together.  For instance, we can analyze them through the joint working group on cybersecurity, the establishment of which we discussed during our previous contacts.

And clearly, it’s past time we restore our cooperation in the cultural area, in the humanitarian area, as far as — I think you know that recently we hosted the American congressmen delegation, and now it’s perceived and portrayed almost as a historic event, although it should have been just a current affairs — just business as usual.  And in this regard, we mentioned this proposal to the President.

But we have to think about the practicalities of our cooperation, but also about the rationale — the underlying logic of it.  And we have to engage experts on bilateral relationship who know history and the background of our relationship.  The idea is to create an expert council that would include political scientists, prominent diplomats, and former military experts from both countries who would look for points of contact between the two countries, that would look for ways on putting the relationship on the trajectory of growth.  

In general, we are glad with the outcome of our first full-scale meeting because previously we only had a chance to talk briefly on international fora.  We had a good conversation with President Trump, and I hope that we start to understand each other better.  And I’m grateful to Donald for it.

     Clearly, there are some challenges left when we were not able to clear all the backlog.  But I think that we made a first important step in this direction.  

     And in conclusion, I want to point out that this atmosphere of cooperation is something that we are especially grateful for to our Finnish hosts.  We’re grateful for Finnish people and Finnish leadership for what they’ve done.  I know that we’ve caused some inconvenience to Finland, and we apologize for it.

     Thank you for your attention.  

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  

     Thank you.  I have just concluded a meeting with President Putin on a wide range of critical issues for both of our countries.  We had direct, open, deeply productive dialogue.  It went very well.  

     Before I begin, I want to thank President Niinistö of Finland for graciously hosting today’s summit.  President Putin and I were saying how lovely it was and what a great job they did.  

     I also want to congratulate Russia and President Putin for having done such an excellent job in hosting the World Cup.  It was really one of the best ever and your team also did very well.  It was a great job.  

     I’m here today to continue the proud tradition of bold American diplomacy.  From the earliest days of our republic, American leaders have understood that diplomacy and engagement is preferable to conflict and hostility.  A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world.

     The disagreements between our two countries are well known, and President Putin and I discussed them at length today.  But if we’re going to solve many of the problems facing our world, then we are going to have to find ways to cooperate in pursuit of shared interests.

     Too often, in both recent past and long ago, we have seen the consequences when diplomacy is left on the table.  We’ve also seen the benefits of cooperation.  In the last century, our nations fought alongside one another in the Second World War.  Even during the tensions of the Cold War, when the world looked  much different than it does today, the United States and Russia were able to maintain a strong dialogue.  

But our relationship has never been worse than it is now.  However, that changed as of about four hours ago.  I really believe that.  Nothing would be easier politically than to refuse to meet, to refuse to engage.  But that would not accomplish anything.  As President, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media, or Democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct.   

     Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia affords the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world.  I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.  As President, I will always put what is best for America and what is best for the American people.

     During today’s meeting, I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections.  I felt this was a message best delivered in person.  We spent a great deal of time talking about it, and President Putin may very well want to address it, and very strongly — because he feels very strongly about it, and he has an interesting idea.  

     We also discussed one of the most critical challenges facing humanity: nuclear proliferation.  I provided an update on my meeting last month with Chairman Kim on the denuclearization of North Korea.  And after today, I am very sure that President Putin and Russia want very much to end that problem.  They’re going to work with us, and I appreciate that commitment.

     The President and I also discussed the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.  Both Russia and the United States have suffered horrific terrorist attacks, and we have agreed to maintain open communication between our security agencies to protect our citizens from this global menace.  

     Last year, we told Russia about a planned attack in St. Petersburg, and they were able to stop it cold.  They found them.  They stopped them.  There was no doubt about it.  I appreciated President Putin’s phone call afterwards to thank me.  

     I also emphasized the importance of placing pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions and to stop its campaign of violence throughout the area, throughout the Middle East.  

     As we discussed at length, the crisis in Syria is a complex one.  Cooperation between our two countries has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives.  I also made clear that the United States will not allow Iran to benefit from our successful campaign against ISIS.  We have just about eradicated ISIS in the area.

     We also agreed that representatives from our national security councils will meet to follow up on all of the issues we addressed today and to continue the progress we have started right here in Helsinki.

     Today’s meeting is only the beginning of a longer process.  But we have taken the first steps toward a brighter future and one with a strong dialogue and a lot of thought.  Our expectations are grounded in realism but our hopes are grounded in America’s desire for friendship, cooperation, and peace.  And I think I can speak on behalf of Russia when I say that also.  

     President Putin, I want to thank you again for joining me for these important discussions and for advancing open dialogue between Russia and the United States.  Our meeting carries on a long tradition of diplomacy between Russia, the United States, for the greater good of all.  

And this was a very constructive day.  This was a very constructive few hours that we spent together.  It’s in the interest of both of our countries to continue our conversation, and we have agreed to do so.  

     I’m sure we’ll be meeting again in the future often, and hopefully we will solve every one of the problems that we discussed today.  

So, again, President Putin, thank you very much.

     MODERATOR:  (As interpreted.)  Distinguished Presidents, now the journalists would have a chance to ask two questions, two sets of question each.  First, the Russian journalist will ask the question.  Please give your affiliation.  

     Q    (As interpreted.)  Good afternoon, my name is Alexei Meshkov, Interfax information agency.  I have a question to President Trump.  During your recent European tour, you mentioned that the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline makes Europe the hostage of Russia.  And you suggested that you could free Europe from this by supplying American LNG.  But this cold winter actually showed that the current model — current mechanism of the supply of fuel to Europe is quite viable.  At the same time, as far as I know, U.S. had to buy even Russian gas for Boston.  

I have a question.  The implementation of your idea has a political tinge to it, or is this a practical one?  Because there will be a gap formed in the supply and demand mechanism, and first it’s the consuming countries who will fall into this gap.

     And the second question: Before the meeting with President Putin, you called him an adversary, a rival, and yet you expressed hope that you would be able to bring this relationship to a new level.  Did you manage to do this?

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Actually, I called him a competitor.  And a good competitor he is.  And I think the word “competitor” is a — it’s a compliment.  I think that we will be competing, when you talk about the pipeline.  I’m not sure necessarily that it’s in the best interest of Germany or not, but that was a decision that they made.  We’ll be competing — as you know, the United States is now, or soon will be — but I think it actually is right now — the largest in the oil and gas world.  

     So we’re going to be selling LNG and we’ll have to be competing with the pipeline.  And I think we’ll compete successfully, although there is a little advantage locationally.  So I just wish them luck.  I mean, I did.  I discussed with Angela Merkel in pretty strong tones.  But I also know where they’re all coming from.  And they have a very close source.   So we’ll see how that all works out.

     But we have lots of sources now, and the United States is much different than it was a number of years ago when we weren’t able to extract what we can extract today.  So today we’re number one in the world at that.  And I think we’ll be out there competing very strongly.

     Thank you very much.

    PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  If I may, I’d throw in some two cents.  We talked to Mr. President, including this subject as well.  We are aware of the stance of President Trump.   And I think that we, as a major oil and gas power — and the United States, as a major oil and gas power as well — we could work together on regulation of international markets, because neither of us is actually interested in the plummeting of the prices.  

And the consumers will suffer as well, and the consumers in the United States will suffer as well, and the shale gas production will suffer.  Because beyond a certain price bracket, it’s no longer profitable to produce gas, but nor we are interested in driving prices up because it will drain juices, life juices, from all other sectors of the economy, from machine building, et cetera.  So we do have space for cooperation here, as the first thing.

     Then, about the Nord Stream 2, Mr. President voiced his concerns about the possibility of disappearance of transit through Ukraine.  And I reassured Mr. President that Russia stands ready to maintain this transit.  Moreover, we stand ready to extend this transit contract that is about to expire next year, in case — if the dispute between the economic entities dispute will be settled in the Stockholm Arbitration Court.

     MS. SANDERS:  (Inaudible) goes to Jeff Mason, from Reuters.

     Q    Thank you.  Mr. President, you tweeted this morning that it’s U.S. foolishness, stupidity, and the Mueller probe that is responsible for the decline in U.S. relations with Russia.  Do you hold Russia at all accountable for anything in particular?  And if so, what would you consider them — that they are responsible for?  

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yes, I do.  I hold both countries responsible.  I think that the United States has been foolish.  I think we’ve all been foolish.  We should have had this dialogue a long time ago — a long time, frankly, before I got to office.  And I think we’re all to blame.  I think that the United States now has stepped forward, along with Russia.  And we’re getting together.  And we have a chance to do some great things, whether it’s nuclear proliferation, in terms of stopping — because we have to do it.  Ultimately, that’s probably the most important thing that we can be working on.  

     But I do feel that we have both made some mistakes.  I think that the probe is a disaster for our country.  I think it’s kept us apart.  It’s kept us separated.  There was no collusion at all.  Everybody knows it.  People are being brought out to the fore.  

So far, that I know, virtually none of it related to the campaign.  And they’re going to have try really hard to find somebody that did relate to the campaign.  That was a clean campaign.  I beat Hillary Clinton easily.  And frankly, we beat her — and I’m not even saying from the standpoint — we won that race.  And it’s a shame that there can even be a little bit of a cloud over it.  

     People know that.  People understand it.  But the main thing, and we discussed this also, is zero collusion.  And it has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers in the world.  We have 90 percent of nuclear power between the two countries.  It’s ridiculous.  It’s ridiculous what’s going on with the probe.  

     Q    For President Putin, if I could follow up as well.  Why should Americans and why should President Trump believe your statement that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election, given the evidence that U.S. intelligence agencies have provided?  And will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a U.S. grand jury?

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I’m going to let the President answer the second part of that question.  But, as you know, the whole concept of that came up perhaps a little bit before, but it came out as a reason why the Democrats lost an election — which, frankly, they should have been able to win, because the Electoral College is much more advantageous for Democrats, as you know, than it is to Republicans.  

     We won the Electoral College by a lot — 306 to 223, I believe.  And that was a well-fought — that was a well-fought battle.  We did a great job.  

And, frankly, I’m going to let the President speak to the second part of your question.  But just to say it one time again, and I say it all the time: There was no collusion.  I didn’t know the President.  There was nobody to collude with.  There was no collusion with the campaign.  And every time you hear all of these — you know, 12 and 14 — it’s stuff that has nothing to do — and frankly, they admit, these are not people involved in the campaign.

     But to the average reader out there, they’re saying, “Well, maybe that does.”  It doesn’t.  And even the people involved, some perhaps told mis-stories or, in one case, the FBI said there was no lie.  There was no lie.  Somebody else said there was.  

     We ran a brilliant campaign, and that’s why I’m President.  Thank you.  

     PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted).  As to who is to be believed and to who is not to be believed, you can trust no one, if you take this.  Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him?  He defends the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation.  

     We do have interests that are common.  We are looking for points of contact.  There are issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences; how to make our effort more meaningful.

We should not proceed from the immediate political interests that guide certain political powers in our countries.  We should be guided by facts.  Can you name a single fact that would definitively prove the collusion?  This is utter nonsense.

     Just like the President recently mentioned — yes, the public at large in the United States had a certain perceived opinion of the candidates during the campaign, but there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about it.  That’s the usual thing.  

     President Trump, when he was a candidate, he mentioned the need to restore the Russia-U.S. relationship, and it’s clear that a certain part of American society felt sympathetic about it, and different people could express their sympathy in different ways.  But isn’t that natural?  Isn’t it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country, who wants to work with us?  

     We heard the accusations about the Concord country [sic].  Well, as far as I know, this company hired American lawyers.  And the accusations doesn’t — doesn’t have a fighting chance in the American courts.  So there’s no evidence when it comes to the actual facts.  So we have to be guided by facts and not by rumors.

     Now, let’s get back to the issue of these 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia.  I don’t know the full extent of the situation, but President Trump mentioned this issue, and I will look into it.

     So far, I can say the following, the things that — off the top of my head: We have an acting — an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999, the Mutual Assistance on Criminal Cases.  This treaty is in full effect.  It works quite efficiently.  

On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.  For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case, upon the request, sent by the United States.  So this treaty has specific legal procedures.  

     We can offer that the appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller — he can use this treaty as a solid foundation, and send a formal, an official request to us so that we would interrogate — we would hold the questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes.  And our law enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States.

     Moreover, we can meet you halfway; we can make another step.  We can actually permit official representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller — we can let them into the country and they will be present at this questioning.  

But in this case, there is another condition.  This kind of effort should be a mutual one.  Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate and they would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe are — who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia, and we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.  

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case.  Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia.  They never paid any taxes, neither in Russia nor in the United States, and yet the money escaped the country.  They were transferred to the United States.  They sent a huge amount of money — $400 million — as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.  Well, that’s their personal case.  It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal.

     So we have a solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions.  So we have an interest of questioning them.  That could be a first step, and we can also extend it.  Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

     Q    And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

     PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  Yes, I did.  Yes, I did.  Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.  

I think there can be three questions from the Russian pool.

Russia Today, you have the floor.

Q    (As interpreted.)  (Speaks Russian.)  Thank you so much.  And good evening to everyone.  My name is Ilya Petrenko, RT TV Channel.  

(Speaks English.)  In English, Mr. President, would you please go into the details of possibly any specific arrangements for the U.S. to work together with Russia in Syria, if any of these kind of arrangements were made today or discussed?

(As interpreted.)  (Speaks Russian.)  And my question to President Putin, in Russian: Since we brought up the issue of football several times, I ask — I use the football language.  Mr. Pompeo mentioned that, when we talk about the Syrian cooperation, the ball is in the Syrian court.  Mr. Putin, in the Russian court, is it true?  And how would you use this fact — the having the ball?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I guess I’ll answer the first part of the question.  We’ve worked with Israel long and hard for many years, many decades.  I think we’ve never — never has anyone, any country been closer than we are.  President Putin also is helping Israel.  And we both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu, and they would like to do certain things with respect to Syria having to do with the safety of Israel.  So in that respect, we absolutely would like to work in order to help Israel, and Israel will be working with us.  So both countries would work jointly.

And I think that, when you look at all of the progress that’s been made in certain sections with the eradication of ISIS, we’re about 98 percent, 99 percent there — and other things that have taken place that we’ve done, and that, frankly, Russia has helped us with in certain respects.  But I think that working with Israel is a great thing, and creating safety for Israel is something that both President Putin and I would like to see very much.  

One little thing I might add to that is the helping of people — helping of people.  Because you have such horrible, if you see — and I’ve seen reports and I’ve seen pictures, I’ve seen just about everything.  And if we can do something to help the people of Syria get back into some form of shelter and — on a humanitarian basis.  And that’s what the word was, really, a humanitarian basis.  I think that both of us would be very interested in doing that, and we are.  We will do that.

Thank you very much.

Q    Excuse me, but, for now, no specific agreements?  For instance, between the militaries?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, our militaries do get along.  In fact, our militaries, actually, have gotten along probably better than our political leaders for years.  But our militaries do get along very well, and they do coordinate in Syria and other places.

Okay, thank you.

PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  Yes, we did mention this.  We mentioned the humanitarian track of this issue.  Yesterday, I discussed this with French President, Mr. Macron.  And we reached an agreement that, together with European countries, including France, we will step up this effort.  

On our behalf, we will provide military cargo aircraft to deliver the humanitarian cargo.  And today, I brought up this issue with President Trump.  I think there is plenty of things to look into.  

     The crucial thing here is that a huge amount of refugees are in Turkey, in Lebanon, in Jordan — in the states that border — are adjacent to Syria.  If we help them, the migratory pressure upon the European states will drop; it will be decreased many-fold.  And I believe it’s crucial from any point of view — from humanitarian point of view, from the point of view of helping people, helping the refugees.  

And in general, I agree, I concur with President Trump: Our military cooperate quite successfully together.  They do get along, and I hope they will be able to do so in future.  And we will be keep working in the Astana format — I mean Russia, Turkey, and Iran — which I informed President Trump about.  

     But we do stand ready to link these efforts to the so-called “small group” of states so that the process would be a broader one, it would be a multi-dimensional one, and so that we will be able to maximize our fighting chance to get the ultimate success in the issue of Syria.

     And speaking about the having the ball in our court in Syria, President Trump has just mentioned that we’ve successfully concluded the World Football Cup.  Speaking of the football, actually — Mr. President, I’ll give this ball to you, and now the ball is in your court.  All the more that the United States will host the World Cup in 2026.  

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.  We do host it.  And we hope we do as good a job.  That’s very nice.  That will go to my son, Barron.  We have no question.  In fact, Melania, here you go.  (Laughter.)    

     Okay.  

     MS. SANDERS:  The final question from the United States will go to Jonathan Lemire, from the AP.

     Q    Thank you.  A question for each President.  President Trump, you first.  Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016.  Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did.  What — who — my first question for you, sir, is, who do you believe?  

     My second question is, would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin — would you denounce what happened in 2016?  And would you warn him to never do it again?  

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  So let me just say that we have two thoughts.  You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server.  Why haven’t they taken the server?  Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?  I’ve been wondering that.  I’ve been asking that for months and months, and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media.  Where is the server?  I want to know, where is the server?  And what is the server saying?  

     With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.  My people came to me — Dan Coats came to me and some others — they said they think it’s Russia.  I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.  

I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.  But I have — I have confidence in both parties.  I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server.  What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?  Where are those servers?  They’re missing.  Where are they?  What happened to Hillary Clinton’s emails?  Thirty-three thousand emails gone — just gone.  I think, in Russia, they wouldn’t be gone so easily.  I think it’s a disgrace that we can’t get Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails.  

     So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.  And what he did is an incredible offer; he offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people.  I think that’s an incredible offer.  

Okay?  Thank you.

PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  I’d like to add something to this.  After all, I was an intelligence officer myself, and I do know how dossiers are made up.  Just a second.  That’s the first thing.  

Now, the second thing: I believe that Russia is a democratic state, and I hope you’re not denying this right to your own country.  You’re not denying that United States is a democracy.  Do you believe the United States is a democracy?  And if so, if it is a democratic state, then the final conclusion in this kind of dispute an only be delivered by a trial by the court, not by the executive — by the law enforcement.  

     For instance, the Concord company that was brought up is being accused — it’s been accused of interference.  But this company does not constitute the Russian State.  It does not represent the Russian State.  And I brought several examples before.  

     Well, you have a lot of individuals in the United States — take George Soros, for instance — with multibillion capitals, but it doesn’t make him — his position, his posture — the posture of the United States?  No, it does not.  Well, it’s the same case.  There is the issue of trying a case in the court, and the final say is for the court to deliver.  

     We’re now talking about the private — the individuals, and not about particular states.  And as far as the most recent allegation is concerned about the Russian intelligence officers, we do have an intergovernmental treaty.  Please, do send us the request.  We will analyze it properly and we’ll send a formal response.  

And as I said, we can extend this cooperation but we should do it on a reciprocal basis, because we would await our Russian counterparts to provide us access to the persons of interest for us whom we believe can have something to do with intelligence services.

     Let’s discuss the specific issues, and not use the Russia and U.S. relationship as a loose change — the loose change for this internal political struggle.  

     Q    My question for President — for President Putin.  Thank you.  Two questions for you, sir.  Can you tell me what President Trump may have indicated to you about officially recognizing Crimea as part of Russia?

     And then secondly, sir, does the Russian government have any compromising material on President Trump or his family?

     PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  (Laughs.)  President Trump and — well, the posture on President Trump on Crimea is well known, and he stands firmly by it.  He continued to maintain that it was illegal to annex it.  We — our viewpoint is different.  We held a referendum in strict compliance with the U.N. Charter and the international legislation.  For us, this issue — we (inaudible) to this issue.

     And now to the compromising material.  Yeah, I did heard these rumors that we allegedly collected compromising material on Mr. Trump when he was visiting Moscow.  

Now, distinguished colleague, let me tell you this: When President Trump was at Moscow back then, I didn’t even know that he was in Moscow.  I treat President Trump with utmost respect.  But back then, when he was a private individual, a businessman, nobody informed me that he was in Moscow.

     Well, let’s take St. Petersburg Economic Forum, for instance.  There were over 500 American businessmen — high-ranking, high-level ones.  I don’t even remember the last names of each and every one of them.  Well, do you remember — do you think that we try to collect compromising material on each and every single one of them?  Well, it’s difficult to imagine an utter nonsense of a bigger scale than this.

     Well, please, just disregard these issues and don’t think about this anymore again.  

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It would have been out long ago.  And if anybody watched Peter Strzok testify over the last couple of days — and I was in Brussels watching it — it was a disgrace to the FBI, it was a disgrace to our country, and, you would say, that was a total witch hunt.

     Thank you very much, everybody.  Thank you.  Thank you.

                               END                 
…

Donald Trump, standing alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin, has declared he cannot see any reason to believe Moscow meddled in the election that led to him becoming U.S. president in 2016.

Every major U.S. intelligence agency has concluded there was such interference by Russia during the election and the matter is the focus of a major federal investigation that has targeted not only Russians, but members of Trump’s election campaign staff.

“President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said of his query to Putin on Monday about the issue. “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”  

Putin said he told Trump during their talks that “the Russian state never interfered and does not plan to interfere in the internal American electoral process.”

Trump informed reporters at a news conference in Finland’s presidential palace that he spent a “great deal of time” addressing the Russian meddling issue.

The U.S. president said he did not directly criticize his Russian counterpart over that issue or any other on which Washington and Moscow have significant differences.

American politicians on both sides of the aisle, as well as former U.S. intelligence officials and diplomats, began sharply criticizing Trump’s remarks, even before the president had boarded Air Force One for the flight back home.

Hours later, on the trip back to Washington, Trump tweeted he has “GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.” He added, “However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past. …”

​Leaders optimistic

Both leaders characterized their talks as having gone well.

“Our expectations are grounded in realism, but our hopes are grounded in America’s desire for friendship, cooperation and peace,” Trump said. “And I think I can speak on behalf of Russia when I say that, also.”

The two presidents spent more than two hours speaking face to face with only their translators present. That discussion was followed by wider talks involving aides.

“Our relationship has never been worse than it is now. However, that changed as of about four hours ago,” the U.S. president declared at the news conference.

Continuing investigation

The Monday meeting came three days after special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers, accusing them of meddling in the election to help Trump win the White House.

Putin on Monday, alongside Trump at the news conference, invited Mueller’s investigators to visit Russia.

The Russian leader also suggested Mueller send a request to Russian authorities concerning those indicted in America.

“Our law enforcement is perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States,” Putin said.

Russia has no extradition treaty with the United States, so it is unlikely it would turn the suspects over to the United States to stand trial.

The fresh indictments had prompted a number of U.S. senators, all but one of them Democrats, to request Trump cancel his summit with Putin.

At the news conference, Putin was asked whether his government had compromising information on the U.S. president — a reference to the so-called Steele dossier that contains unverified salacious information about one of Trump’s visits to the country as a businessman.

“I was an intelligence officer myself, and I do know how dossiers are made up,” replied Putin. He added that it is “utter nonsense” to imagine that Russia tries to collect compromising material on every important American business figure who visits the country.

During his week in Europe, Trump was combative with traditional U.S. allies — beginning at a NATO summit in Brussels, where he chastised European leaders for not spending more on defense.

He put himself in the middle of a domestic political controversy in London, where he told a tabloid newspaper that Prime Minister Theresa May had ignored his advice about how to pursue Britain’s exit from the European Union. He also stated Boris Johnson, who had quit May’s Cabinet as foreign minister over disagreement with her Brexit plan, “would be a great prime minister.” 
…

The United States has reportedly rejected requests from European allies that are seeking exemptions from U.S. sanctions imposed on countries doing business in Iran. 

According to diplomats and other officials, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wrote a letter to Britain, France and Germany saying the U.S. would not provide widespread protection from sanctions to countries doing business in Iran. 

Pompeo and Mnuchin said in their letter, first reported by NBC News, that they are seeking “to provide unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian regime.” 

The U.S. did add, however, that it would grant limited exceptions, based on national security or humanitarian grounds. The letter came in response to a request last month from Britain, France and Germany.

The U.S. pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal earlier this year. The deal sought to limit Iran’s nuclear activity in exchange for sanctions relief. 

The U.S. said it plans to reimpose tough sanctions on Iran, beginning in early August, targeting Iran’s automotive sector, trade and gold, and other key metals. 

A second set of sanctions are set to begin in early November. Those sanctions will focus on Iran’s energy sector and petroleum related transactions and transactions with the central bank of Iran. 

The U.S. has warned other countries that they will also face sanctions if they continue to trade with sanctioned sectors of the Iranian economy. 

The Trump administration’s hard stance on Iranian sanctions is part of a growing list of contentious moves that the U.S. has engaged in with its allies. On a recent trip to Europe, Trump complained members of the NATO alliance are not fiscally responsible. The U.S. leader also criticized British Prime Minister Theresa May’s handling of Brexit. He has also called the European Union a “foe” on trade issues.
…

The outcome of the first summit between the unpredictable first-term American president and Russia’s steely-eyed longtime leader is anybody’s guess. With no set agenda, the summit could veer between spectacle and substance. As Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin head into Monday’s meeting in Helsinki, here’s a look at what each president may be hoping to achieve:

What Trump wants

What Trump wants from Russia has long been one of the great mysteries of his presidency.

The president will go into the summit followed by whispers about his ties to Moscow, questions that have grown only more urgent since the Justice Department last week indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers accused of interfering in the 2016 election in an effort to help Trump.

And while most summits featuring an American president are carefully scripted affairs designed to produce a tangible result, Trump will go face-to-face with Putin having done scant preparation, possessing no clear agenda and saddled with a track record that, despite his protests, suggests he may not sharply challenge his Russian counterpart over election meddling. 

“I think we go into that meeting not looking for so much,” Trump told reporters last week.

Trump has strenuously insisted that improved relations with Russia would benefit the United States. But much of the appeal of the Finland meeting is simply to have the summit itself and to bolster ties between Washington and Moscow and between Putin and Trump, who places his personal rapport with foreign leaders near the heart of his foreign policy.

“The fact that we’re having a summit at this level, at this time in history, is a deliverable in itself,” said Jon Huntsman, the U.S. ambassador to Russia. “What is important here is that we start a discussion.” 

Trump has been drawn to the spectacle of the summit and has expressed an eagerness to recreate in Helsinki the media show of last month’s Singapore summit when he met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. 

Even as many NATO leaders made supportive noises this week, the Helsinki summit has raised fears in many global capitals that Trump will pull back from traditional Western alliances, allowing Putin to expand his sphere of influence. 

Back home, too, there is wariness on Capitol Hill, with a number of Democrats and a handful of Republicans urging Trump to cancel the summit in the wake of the explosive indictments.

But Trump has vowed that he can handle Putin, whom he has taken to referring to as a “competitor” rather than an adversary.

And Trump in recent days has outlined some of the items he’d like to discuss, including Ukraine. Though the president has said he was “not happy” about Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, he puts the blame on his predecessor and says he will continue relations with Putin even if Moscow refuses to return the peninsula.

Trump also said he and Putin would discuss the ongoing war in Syria and arms control, negotiations that White House officials have signaled could be fruitful. 

“I will be talking about nuclear proliferation,” the president said alongside British Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday. “We’ve been modernizing and fixing and buying. And it’s just a devastating technology. And they, likewise, are doing a lot. And it’s a very, very bad policy.”

But it is the matter of election meddling, including fears Russia could try to interfere in the midterm elections this fall, that could play a central role in the summit talks or loom even larger if not addressed. In neither of Trump’s previous meetings with Putin — informal talks on the sidelines of summits last year in Germany and Vietnam _ did the president publicly upbraid the Russian leader, prompting questions about whether he believed the former KGB officer’s denials over his own intelligence agencies’ assessments of meddling. 

Trump repeatedly has cast doubt on the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacking of his Democratic rivals and disparaged special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible links between Russia and his campaign as a “witch hunt.” But he said in Britain that he would raise it with Putin even as he downplayed its impact.

“I don’t think you’ll have any ‘Gee, I did it. I did it. You got me,”‘ Trump said, invoking a television detective. “There won’t be a Perry Mason here, I don’t think. But you never know what happens, right? But I will absolutely firmly ask the question.” 

What Putin wants

For Putin, sitting down with Trump offers a long-awaited chance to begin repairing relations with Washington after years of spiraling tensions. 

Putin wants the U.S. and its allies to lift sanctions, pull back NATO forces deployed near Russia’s borders and restore business as usual with Moscow. In the longer run, he hopes to persuade the U.S. to acknowledge Moscow’s influence over its former Soviet neighbors and, more broadly, recognize Russia as a global player whose interests must be taken into account. 

These are long-term goals, and Putin realizes that no significant progress will come from just one meeting. More than anything else, he sees Monday’s summit as an opportunity to develop good rapport with Trump and set the stage for regular high-level contacts. 

“Russia-U.S. ties aren’t just at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War, they never were as bad as they are now,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, who chairs the Council for Foreign and Defense Policies, an influential Moscow-based association of policy experts. “It’s unhealthy and abnormal when the leaders of the two nuclear powers capable of destroying each other and the rest of the world don’t meet.” 

Moscow views Trump’s criticism of NATO allies and his recent comments about wanting Russia back in the Group of Seven club of leading industrialized nations with guarded optimism but no euphoria. Initially excited about Trump’s election, the Kremlin has long realized that his hands are bound by the ongoing investigations into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow. 

Konstantin Kosachev, the Kremlin-connected head of the foreign affairs committee in parliament’s upper house, wrote in his blog that Russia won’t engage in vague talk about “illusory subjects,” such as the prospect of lifting Western sanctions or Russia’s return to the G-7.

Putin knows it would be unrealistic to expect U.S. recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea or a quick rollback of sanctions approved by Congress. Instead, he’s likely to focus on issues where compromise is possible to help melt the ice. 

Syria is one area where Moscow and Washington could potentially reach common ground. 

One possible agreement could see Washington give a tacit go-ahead for a Syrian army deployment along the border with Israel in exchange for the withdrawal of Iranian forces and their Hezbollah proxies, whose presence in the area represents a red line for Israel. 

There is little hope for any quick progress on other major issues.

Kosachev said it would be “pointless” to discuss Russian meddling in the U.S. election, which Moscow firmly denies. He also warned that demands for Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine or revise its policy on eastern Ukraine would be equally fruitless. The Kremlin sees Crimea’s status as non-negotiable and puts the blame squarely on the Ukrainian government for the lack of progress on a 2015 plan to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Putin has held the door open for a possible deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to separate the warring sides, but firmly rejected Ukraine’s push for their presence along the border with Russia. 

On arms control, one area where the U.S. and Russia might reach agreement is a possible extension of the New START treaty, set to expire in 2021, which caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550 for each country. 

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, is supposed to last indefinitely but has increasingly run into trouble. The U.S. has accused Russia of violating the terms of the treaty by developing a new cruise missile, which Moscow has denied. 

Russia has pledged adherence to both treaties, but it has become less focused on arms control agreements than in the past, when it was struggling to maintain nuclear parity with the U.S. 

After complaining about U.S. missile defense plans as a major threat to Russia, Putin in March unveiled an array of new weapons he said would render the U.S. missile shield useless, including a hypersonic intercontinental strike vehicle and a long-range nuclear-powered underwater drone armed with an atomic weapon. 

“Russia was much weaker, and the weak always try to appeal to international law,” Lukyanov said. “But the atmosphere is different now, and Russia is much more self-confident.” 
…

Five EU countries have agreed to accept some of the nearly 450 migrants being transported aboard two military ships stuck off the coast of Sicily, Italian Prime Minister Giueseppe Conte said Sunday.

Germany, Spain and Portugal each agreed Sunday to accept 50 of the migrants after France and Malta agreed to do the same on Saturday.

But the Czech Republic rebuffed the appeal, calling the distribution plan a “road to hell.”  

The two ships, one belonging to the European Union border agency Frontex and another to the Italian border police, have been stranded in Italian waters after hardline Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said the vessels should be sent to Malta, “or better Libya,” from where the migrants had originally set sail.

Italy’s new populist government, which came to power on June 1, has upended years of migrant policy by banning ships run by migration charities from docking in Italian ports, accusing them of aiding human traffickers.

Salvini, who has vowed not to take in any more migrants unless the burden is shared by other EU countries, repeated that Sunday, telling reporters the “aim was for brotherly redistribution” of the 450 rescued passengers on the two ships.

The number of migrants arriving in Italy so far this year is down about 80 percent compared to 2017. Salvini has vowed to stop all arrivals except for war refugees and a few other exceptions.

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump advised British Prime Minister Theresa May to sue the European Union instead of negotiating with the bloc, as part of her Brexit strategy.

“He told me I should sue the EU,” May told BBC television. “Sue the EU. Not go into negotiations — sue them.”

Her revelation about how Trump advised her ended several days of speculation about what advice the U.S. leader had offered the prime minister.

Trump said last week in an interview with The Sun newspaper that he had given May advice, but she did not follow it. The president told the newspaper ahead of his meeting with May that she “didn’t listen” to him.

“I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route,” Trump said.

Trump did not reveal what advice he offered May in a press conference with her Friday. Instead, he said, “I think she found it too brutal.”

He added, “I could fully understand why she thought it was tough. And maybe someday she’ll do that. If they don’t make the right deal, she may do what I suggested, but it’s not an easy thing.”

May also told the BBC that the president had advised her not to walk away from the negotiations “because then you’re stuck.”

For the past few months, British politics have been obscured by squabbling, irritability and bravado about how, when and on what terms Britain will exit the European Union, and what the country’s relationship will be with its largest trading partner after Brexit.

Britons narrowly voted to leave the EU in a referendum in June 2016.

 
…