Theories for why Trump seemed to kowtow to Putin
There are two theories to explain Trump’s bizarre and disgraceful performance at the Helsinki summit and his ridiculous misspoken “would versus wouldn’t” excuse afterwards. Trump appeared weak and deferential towards Putin despite his own national intelligence agencies’ findings that Russia meddled in the 2016 US presidential election.
The first theory is that he cannot endorse the accusation of Russian meddling because to do so would delegitimise his election victory. And given Trump’s egomaniacal nature, that would be the last thing he would do.
The other theory is based on the suspicion that Putin may have some “dirt” on Trump, either from his past business dealings in Russia or information of a more personal – some even suggest sexual – nature that the Russians have caught on tape.
From a purely logical standpoint, while Russia may be physically larger and maintain a fearsome nuclear arsenal, it is the weaker country both economically and militarily, so there is no reason why Trump must show deference to Putin. And while Trump makes the point that it is always a “good thing” to talk rather than confront each other, “talking” does not mean kow-towing.
As the saying goes, when something seems hard to explain logically, there must be some missing element we have overlooked. That’s why Trump’s unpredictability may not be that unpredictable if only we can identify his hidden motive.
Anan Pakvasa
Bangkok
