Trump’s Impulsiveness Has Again Been Mistaken for Something Deeper - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )

Trump’s Impulsiveness Has Again Been Mistaken for Something Deeper - By Benjamin Har

It’s a new Trump! (Again.) Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty

Last Wednesday, President Trump made a surprising, curious deal with Democrats. Rather than bow to the wishes of his fellow Republicans by attempting to raise the debt ceiling for six or more months, Trump undercut (for roughly the 15-thousandth time) his baffling reputation as a master negotiator and acceded to Democrats’ demands for a shorter extension straightaway, setting up a fiscal showdown in December that few in his party are looking forward to.

The arrangement was limited in scope and represents a minor victory, at best, for Democrats. But Trump’s supposed apostasy provided a convenient excuse for Republicans to loudly denounce their unhinged president, separating themselves from a man they think gives conservatism a bad name. Their protestations also colored the way the deal was covered in the mainstream press — as some sort of tectonic shift instead of the 1.2 tremor on the political Richter scale it really was.

This gap between the magnitude of the events and the perception of them was evident in media coverage over the weekend. On Saturday, the New York Times published an article, pegged to the deal, with the headline: “Bound to No Party, Trump Upends 150 Years of Two-Party Rule.”

“Although elected as a Republican last year,” Peter Baker writes, “Mr. Trump has shown in the nearly eight months in office that he is, in many ways, the first independent to hold the presidency since the advent of the current two-party system around the time of the Civil War.” Baker notes that Trump originally thought of running for president on the Reform Party ticket in 2000, cites Trump’s consistent attacks against fellow Republicans like Mitch McConnell as proof of his refusal to be boxed in by party, and even speculates that Trump will ditch the GOP when he runs for reelection.

The label “independent” implies that a political figure isn’t bound to the dogma of one of the two major parties — and there is very little evidence that this is true for Trump. He did once hold far more liberal views than he does now, and he has been relentless in attacking his own party. But none of that changes the fact that the president has seemed eager to govern as an extreme right-wing ideologue on almost every issue. The notion, popular during the campaign, that Trump would fuse nativist impulses with big-government largesse has fizzled; instead, he has thrown his weight behind hugely regressive tax cuts and massive cuts to Medicaid and abandoned his plan to fix the nation’s infrastructure. (He has, of course, stuck with the hard line on immigration, the one area where he has bucked traditional Republican orthodoxy.)

Another problem with the thesis is that attacking “Establishment” Republicans like McConnell or Paul Ryan hardly counts as aberrant behavior for a bomb-throwing GOPer these days — that kind of behavior has been firmly part of the culture of the party since at least the tea-party wave of 2010. If Donald Trump isn’t really a Republican, what about Ted Cruz or the members of the House Freedom Caucus?

The article quotes Ben Domenech, editor of the Federalist, who says Republicans should not think of Trump as their party leader. But the idea that Trump is some sort of anomalous fake Republican is wishful thinking by Domenech. The GOP base still largely embraces the president, and sides with him, not tut-tutting party functionaries, on his most divisive ideas. The appearance of political independence on Trump’s part is mostly a function of a fractured and dysfunctional party.

Axios’s Mike Allen also seemed ready to accept the idea that Trump’s deal with Democrats marked an epochal shift in the direction of independence. In an item headlined “Why Trump Hopes the New Trump Sticks,” Allen wrote:

A Trump adviser says that after a tumultuous seven months in office, it had finally dawned on the president: “People really f@&@ing hate me.” For someone who has spent his life lapping up adulation, however fake, it was a harsh realization. This is a man with an especially acute need for affirmation.

The question of why Trump would arrive at this realization now, as opposed to any point over the last several years (or decades) goes unanswered.

It’s tempting, as always, to believe that Trump has finally had his come-to-Jesus moment and realized the error of his divisive ways. But the truism that Trump is governed by the need to be loved is belied by the fact that almost everything he says and does is profoundly unpopular. But Trump didn’t win in 2016 by pandering to the average American; he won by tailoring a message for tens of millions of aggrieved white people. And there’s been no real sign since his presidency began, one day’s worth of bipartisanship notwithstanding, that he’s uncomfortable with maintaining that approach going forward.

(Axios also reported over the weekend that Trump will meet with black Republican senator Tim Scott in what could be a “racial reset” after the president’s botched responses to the violence in Charlottesville. It notes that “the moment could be fleeting or consequential, depending on whether Trump realizes that, at 71, he has a lot of catching up to do.” A wild guess: It will be fleeting.)

Almost eight months into his decidedly abnormal presidency, there remains a persistent and surprisingly widespread impulse among political journalists to transmogrify Trump into a traditional president, one who makes decisions based on long-term strategy, one not governed by pure id — a president who has something in common with men who came before him. (Perhaps there’s something comforting in that?)

This impulse animated the never-fulfilled expectation that Trump would “pivot” to a more traditional presidential pose during the 2016 election. It showed up again when Trump kind of, sort of eschewed his nuttier side during Hurricane Harvey. And it has appeared once more, now that Trump has made a very slight gesture toward bipartisanship.

Ken Tremendous ✔ @KenTremendous

In spirit, Pennywise isn't a murderer or a clown. He's a free-spirited entertainer who has his own way of relating to children. https://twitter.com/costareports/status/906540818575630336 …

Yet just three weeks ago, Trump was touting the merits of white supremacists. His dark, Manichaean view of the world is not going to change; nor will his impulsiveness, impetuousness, or any of the other characteristics that make him so ill-suited to be president. Waiting for him to transform into some semblance of a normal human being, much less a president governed by anything beyond impulse, will be a long wait indeed.

Meanwhile, Trump connected Hurricane Irma to the apparently urgent need for “tax reform” — one of the 15 things he does every day that would have counted as scandalous for any other president, but which the country has become so inured to that it barely makes a ripple.

States to Trump: Leave Retirement Rule Intact or We’ll Act - Wall Street Journal

States to Trump: Leave Retirement Rule Intact or We’ll Act

Legislatures, regulators across country move to shore up investor protections as fiduciary rule is reviewed

By Lisa Beilfuss

Sept. 12, 2017

The controversy over a rule restricting conflicted retirement advice is shifting to states, which are moving to bolster investor protections out of concern the Trump administration will weaken the federal provision.

In recent months, the governors of Nevada and Connecticut signed bills to expand or amplify “fiduciary” requirements for brokers. Legislators in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have introduced similar bills. And several other states, including California, have indicated interest in exploring such requirements.

Unveiled last year, the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule requires brokers to act in the best interests of retirement savers rather than sell products that are merely suitable and potentially more lucrative for the brokers. Financial-industry leaders have fought against the Obama-era regulation, saying it would limit investment options, elevate costs and potentially cut off low-balance customers from some forms of professional advice.

The states’ efforts come as the fate of the federal rule, which partially went into effect in June, remains in question. President Donald Trump shortly after taking office ordered the Labor Department to re-evaluate the economic impact of the rule with an eye toward repeal or revision. The states in many cases are looking to go beyond the federal rule, which only governs advice on tax-advantaged retirement savings, and instead require that brokers uphold a fiduciary standard across all accounts.

The piecemeal legislative efforts have galvanized the industry just months after many in it had cheered Mr. Trump’s election as a chance to roll back regulations perceived as arduous and costly to comply with. Industry executives and trade groups say they are watching the states’ actions and beginning to lobby at the state level to prevent a scenario where state laws mushroom as the federal fiduciary rule dwindles.

“The states are ... picking up the pieces,” said John Grady, an attorney who also leads the Alternative and Direct Investment Securities Association. “People feel there’s a vacuum they have to fill.”

Labor Department to Roll Back Fiduciary Rule Compliance Deadline

Who Is Winning With the Fiduciary Rule? Wall Street

Should You Dump Your Broker Because of the Fiduciary Rule?

SEC Wades Into ‘Fiduciary Rule’ Debate

As Fiduciary Rule Phases In, Now What?

While the industry has decried the federal rule, it has turned out to be been a boon for Wall Street as firms push customers into the fiduciary-friendly—and typically more-lucrative—accounts that charge an annual fee. At the same time, the more onerous elements of the regulation, including client disclosures and a contract that would increase litigation risk, have been delayed until July 1, 2019, and are likely to be significantly revised or eliminated.

“We have been concerned that there is momentum under way on the issue” at the state level, said a spokesman for the American Council of Life Insurers, an industry group that has opposed the federal rule. Some executives and trade groups say state efforts make it more critical that the Securities and Exchange Commission steps in to write its own rule that would supersede the Labor Department’s and require a fiduciary standard on both retirement and nonretirement accounts.

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has expressed interest in such a standard. In June, the SEC said it would consider strengthening rules on how brokers advise individual investors, seeking public feedback on its plans. The SEC didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, many states remain steadfast in wanting to preserve the goals of the fiduciary rule. A bipartisan group of 13 state treasurers, in a letter to Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta dated June 7 said: “We are committed to protecting the financial interests of our constituents—in particular, ensuring that retirement planning and investment advice is not conflicted.” The treasurers, including those from Pennsylvania, Oregon and Iowa, asked Mr. Acosta to preserve the “common-sense measure.”

States’ efforts may have taken on new urgency in recent weeks after Mr. Acosta moved to delay the rule’s final compliance deadline by 18 months, a signal that the rule’s re-evaluation will result in changes. As well, the Labor Department recently suggested it intends to eliminate the rule’s main enforcement mechanism, a provision that allows investors to bring-class action suits against advisers they say violated their fiduciary duty.

“This is a mobilization based on concerns that the DOL rule may be unhinged,” said Erin Sweeney, an attorney at Miller & Chevalier Chartered who counsels firms regarding fiduciary obligations.

Nevada is emerging as a test case, observers say, because its rule could expand the reach of fiduciary obligations to all investment assets and not just tax-advantaged retirement assets. The state’s securities regulator is writing the regulation and details aren’t yet clear.

Experts say states’ actions could face legal challenges. The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 limits what states can do on their own and aims to prevent patchwork regulation. Potentially inconsistent state regulations could raise compliance costs more than a single federal rule would have, experts say, with consulting firm AT Kearney estimating that the federal rule would result in up to $20 billion in lost industry revenue through 2020.

“This could become a bit like Frankenstein,” said George Gerstein, an attorney at Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP who represents financial-services firms. “If states go their own way on this, it could become a nightmare.”

New York State Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, a Democrat, said he began working on a fiduciary bill several years ago and dropped the effort after the Obama administration took it on to protect the $17 billion it said consumers lose annually to conflicted advice. “But under the Trump administration, the regulation that would have been in effect this year isn’t,” he said, referring to the delay in the final compliance deadline. “We’re back to square one.”

Mr. Dinowitz reintroduced a fiduciary bill on Jan. 20.

Meanwhile, industry executives are watching California, where a Senate resolution introduced in June “has telegraphed to [regulators] that they shouldn’t tinker too much with the DOL rule,” Mr. Gerstein said. If that translates to a bill, he said, “then that changes everything.”

California’s securities regulator said it is separately watching what happens in Washington and could act independently of the state’s legislature.

Observers say that while some firms could decide to leave Nevada to avoid an onerous regulation, they can’t ignore the most populous state. If California enacts its own fiduciary rule, experts say it could effectively render the Labor Department’s rule moot—whatever the outcome of the re-evaluation.

If California acts, “this takes on a life of its own,” said Mr. Gerstein.

7 QUESTIONS ABOUT NORTH KOREA - CNN News

7 QUESTIONS ABOUT NORTH KOREA

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria answers your questions about the nuclear threat from the reclusive nation

It’s hard to keep up with the rapid-fire news coming from North Korea these days.

The latest major development came over the Labor Day weekend when North Korea tested its most powerful weapon yet -- a hydrogen bomb far stronger than the weapon dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II.

The big fear now is that Pyongyang could develop a nuclear-tipped missile that could reach the United States.

We recently asked what you want to know about North Korea and received hundreds of questions on Facebook. I chose seven that best represented the majority of interests, and sat down with Fareed Zakaria, a foreign affairs expert and host of CNN’s “GPS,” Sundays at 1 pm ET, to get answers.

Pyongyang, Arirang Festival

Question: “Do you really think North Korea will attack?” Rahul Sharma, Oregon

Fareed Zakaria: Rahul, that’s the biggest question, which is what is the intention here? My own view is that the North Koreans are trying to establish they are a serious nuclear power. There are not just a couple of bombs in the basement, but real bombs with real missiles with delivery systems and the capacity to attack. Which is all meant to send a signal – don’t mess with us. I think it is ultimately about deterrence and saying don’t try a regime change. The United States has essentially said that we want to topple this regime. For a long time, President George W. Bush made North Korea one of the axis of evil, so they do feel some real sense of being isolated and vulnerable. But, you have to say, Kim Jong Un is acting more aggressively and in a more provocative way than his predecessors, his father and grandfather did, particularly with the Chinese and that’s what leaves people a little bit puzzled. Why is he so provocative with the one treaty ally they have in the world?

Traditional North Korean dress with Kim Il Sung pin

Q: “If the North Korean regime were to fall, do South Koreans even want to unite the Korean Peninsula? Or would they rather let North Koreans fend for themselves?” - Josh Cambell, Washington

FZ: Josh, it’s a really good question. For a long time, the South Koreans have believed they wanted the eventual unification of the Koreas, as do the people in the North. That’s the established official position that both sides have always had. I think South Koreans are increasingly very wary of that prospect because if you compare North Korea and South Korea to East Germany and West Germany, North Korea is much poorer and much bigger proportionally than East Germany was. It took West Germany, one of the richest countries in the world, two decades to integrate East Germany. It cost them 5% of GDP every year for two decades and it’s still not properly integrated. Integrating North Korea would be a monumental cost for the South Koreans, so they are having real second thoughts.

Red Guard cadet in Pyongyang

Q: “What options do we have left in dealing with North Korea? Better/more defensive weapons, increased pressure by China, talks with North Korea or business as usual?” - Craig Burzain, California

FZ: It’s a very difficult question. There is no simple answer but I think all the things you outlined are exactly the elements we have to work on. There is only one government that has serious influence with North Korea and that is China. It has a lot less than it used to for a variety of reasons, partly the Chinese have gotten less interested in North Korea and support it less. The North Koreans see that and are as a result more isolated and therefore more invulnerable to Chinese pressure but possibly negotiations at some point could be useful. I tend to think the main card here is the Chinese, because without the Chinese you can’t do anything. One thing is for certain, if the Chinese are opposed to what the United States decides its policy is, there is really no serious option and no serious hope of any resolution.

Kim Jong Un sculpture in the main entrance of Korean War Museum in Pyongyang

Q: “What are some of the most dire consequences if we somehow manage to destabilize the regime?” Eric Seaenz, Texas

FZ: Very good question Eric. The most specific real risk I think that we face is if the regime feels threatened. If the United States were to attack, it will almost certainly respond but probably not using its nuclear weapons. North Korea has thousands -- literally thousands -- of rockets aimed at Seoul, where about 15 million, and maybe more, people live. This is within easy range of North Korean artillery and rockets and they would, in a sense, release a rain of fire on Seoul. South Koreans would then of course be forced to attack, and you would have one of the worst conventional battles that we’ve seen in human history. Estimates I’ve seen certainly go over 1 million people that would be dead or wounded in a battle like this. So you’d be looking at something that would be pretty grim and scary, but also has potential to escalate because the North has nuclear weapons and the South because of its alliance with the United States has the capacity to call in, potentially nuclear weapons if the United States agreed. So not only are you going to watch a conventional battle, the kind of which we haven’t seen since WWII, you’re also likely to see something possibly escalate. So, all in all a very bad scenario.

Avenue leading to Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, Pyongyang

Q: “Do you think Kim Jong Un believes his own propaganda?” - Christopher Cohen – New York

FZ: In a word, no. I think this is a guy who went to school in Switzerland at some fancy prep school, so I think he knows about the world. I think this is a ruthless, brutal, corrupt system that is simply trying to stay in power. There is nobody in North Korea that believes in whatever it is that their ideology is, and they don’t even really know what their ideology is at this point. It’s a weird mixture of communism and kind of family worship of the Kim family.

Pyongyang, two local ladies visiting Revolutionary Martyrs' Cemetery

Q: “My understanding is that the working people are nearly starving. How much longer can they hold out and put up with this? And are they educated and informed enough to know what is going on in the world and where they fit in?” - Ric Aguilar, North Carolina

FZ: Ric, it’s a great question because it’s one of the great puzzles about North Korea. They live on almost a near subsistence level, one of the poorest countries in the world right next to one of the richest countries in the world: South Korea, which has had one of the most amazing economic rises from poverty in the last 30 years, and I don’t think the average North Korean knows much about the outside world. They don’t know much about what life is like and information is very tightly controlled. I don’t know if the stories are still true but it used to be that if you went to a North Korean family’s home there was a radio in every household and it was always turned on, and it was a crime to turn off the radio. It was the broadcast system that the regime used, and so all you heard all day was regime propaganda, and you couldn’t turn it off. It was something straight out of Orwell’s 1984.

Entrance plaza to the Korean War Museum

Q: “What is the likelihood of North Korea selling nuclear weapons or technologies to others? Is this a threat that they might use as a bargaining chip?” Ben Dehner, Iowa

A: Ben, it’s a really good question because they did it in the past. We know that the North Koreans certainly have engaged in the buying of nuclear technology and it appears to have come from Pakistan and maybe some other places. Would they possibly sell it? Yes, it’s certainly possible. The danger is human beings are human beings. I don’t know if the Pakistani government intended to sell its secrets, but we do know there were certain Pakistani scientists and some military people who might have individually profited and done it. So the systems can leak and I wouldn’t want to underestimate the fact that there is a danger. But so far I have not seen much evidence of the North Korean government going around offering up its nuclear technology or its nuclear weaponry in any way on an open black market.

Steve Bannon has called the firing of FBI director James Comey potentially the biggest mistake in “modern political history” - Independent

Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has called the firing of FBI director James Comey potentially the biggest mistake in “modern political history”.

Mr Bannon, who left his post as executive chairman of far-right website Breitbart to run Mr Trump’s presidential campaign, was himself dismissed by the White House in August.

He is understood to have played a key role in some of the Trump administration’s most controversial policies, including the travel ban and the decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Republicans could lose House of Representatives in 2018, says Bannon

Making his first TV appearance since being ousted from the President’s team, Mr Bannon appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes, where he discussed the firing of Mr Comey, who had been leading the investigation into possible collusion between Mr Trump’s advisors and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Mr. Bannon confirmed on the show that he opposed Mr Trump’s decision to remove the former FBI director. He called the FBI “an institution” and said that while bodies such as the US Senate and House of Representatives can be changed “if the leadership is changed", he FBI was different.

“I don’t believe that the institutional logic of the FBI, and particularly in regards to an investigation, could possibly be changed by changing the head of it,” Mr Bannon said.

Presenter Charlie Rose told Mr Bannon during the interview: “Someone said to me that you described the firing of James Comey – you’re a student of history – as the biggest mistake in political history”.

Mr Bannon responded by saying: “That probably would be too bombastic even for me, but maybe modern political history.”

Steve Bannon discusses SNL portraying him as the Grim Reaper

Republicans could lose House of Representatives in 2018, says Bannon

George Clooney criticises 'failed f**king screenwriter' Steve Bannon

Catholic Church needs 'illegal aliens' to fill churches, says Bannon

“If you’re saying that that’s associated with me then I’ll leave it at that,” he added.

Mr Bannon, who returned to Breitbart after being ousted from the White House, said he believed the current investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller would not be taking place had Mr Comey not been fired.

“We would not have the Mueller investigation and the breadth that clearly Mr Mueller is going for,” he said.

Mr Mueller, who has taken over the investigation into Russia’s alleged meddling in the election, is said to be examining the draft of a letter written by Mr Trump that allegedly outlines his reasons for firing Mr Comey and could provide evidence of the president acting in a way that obstructed justice.

He has reportedly alerted the White House of his intention to interview former press secretary Sean Spicer, ex-chief of staff Reince Preibus and communications director Hope Hicks as part of his investigation.

Additional reporting by AP

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could destroy each other - Financial Times

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could destroy each other

by: Gideon Rachman

If Vladimir Putin did help to put Donald Trump in the White House, it would be the ultimate intelligence coup. Yet, it might also prove to be the ultimate own goal. An operation designed to ease the pressure on Mr Putin’s government by installing a friendly face in the White House has instead led to a tightening of sanctions on Russia, and a dangerous increase in the domestic political pressure on the Russian president.

As for Mr Trump, his campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia may have aided his electoral victory at the risk of destroying his presidency. It would be a strange irony if the intimacy of the Putin and Trump camps ultimately ended both presidents’ political careers.

Of course, the Russian government and Mr Trump’s diehard defenders still deny that any such collusion took place. But the US intelligence services are certain that Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic party emails.

It seems likely that the hack influenced the course of a tight election. I was in Philadelphia on the eve of the Democratic convention in July 2016 when the first leaked emails were released. The revelation that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the co-chair of the Democratic National Committee, had been privately disparaging the Bernie Sanders campaign forced her resignation, and ensured that the convention got off to a chaotic start. Mr Sanders’ supporters were convinced that their man had been robbed. And Sanders voters who switched to the Republicans, were crucial to Mr Trump’s victories in the vital states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. We now also know that Russian operators used Facebook and Twitter to spread anti-Clinton messages.

Throughout the campaign, Mr Trump was consistently sympathetic to the Kremlin. Whether he was motivated by ideology, investment or some embarrassing secret has yet to emerge.

But the Russian connection set off the chain of events that may ultimately unravel his presidency. Alarmed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into his Russian contacts, Mr Trump sacked James Comey, the head of the FBI. The backlash against the Comey sacking led to the appointment of Robert Mueller, a former head of the Bureau, as a special prosecutor to look into the Trump-Russia connection. And the remorseless progress of the Mueller inquiry is likely to spark indictments and resignations. That, in turn, could lead to the impeachment of Mr Trump — and the destruction of his presidency.

As for Mr Putin, the moment it became clear that his gamble might backfire was when Mr Trump was forced to sack General Michael Flynn, his first national security adviser, for not disclosing contacts with the Russian government. From that point on, it became politically impossible for Mr Trump to help Russia by easing sanctions. On the contrary, the backlash against Russian interference in the US election has led to the intensification of sanctions, with a distrustful Congress ensuring that Mr Trump cannot lift these measures unilaterally.

Indeed, for the Republican Congress getting tough on Russia seems to have become a surrogate for getting tough on Mr Trump. The sanctions added over the summer were aimed specifically at the Russian mining and oil industries, In response, Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian prime minister, accused the US of “a declaration of full-fledged economic warfare on Russia”.

So far from improving under Mr Trump, US-Russian relations are now as bitter as at any time since the height of the cold war. Realising that the Trump administration will not be able to lift sanctions, the Kremlin resorted to a mass expulsion of US diplomats in response to an earlier expulsion of Russians by the Obama administration. The prospect that the US might supply arms to Ukraine has become much more real. And Russia is about to embark on some major military exercises in eastern Europe, which will heighten US fears.

The irony for Mr Putin is that, if he had simply let events take their course, sanctions on Russia could have been eased in the natural run of events — even with Hillary Clinton in the White House. Mrs Clinton had already tried one “reset” with Russia as secretary of state, and might have been prepared to try another. Many in Europe were also tiring of sanctions on Russia.

When the Mueller inquiry reports, there is likely to be a renewed spike in American outrage towards Russia. The most obvious threat is posed to Mr Trump. But the Mueller inquiry also poses an indirect threat to Mr Putin. He will contest a presidential election in March and faces a re-energised opposition, led by the popular and daring Alexei Navalny, and a deteriorating economy that has hit Russian consumers hard. Even though very few people expect Mr Putin to lose the election, the pro-Putin euphoria of a couple of years ago is clearly fading. Articles about the post-Putin era have begun to appear in the Russian media.

Above all, the most powerful economic interests in Russia now know that there is no longer any light at the end of the sanctions tunnel. In fact, things are likely to get worse. Something radical will have to change to get sanctions lifted. And that change might be the removal of Mr Putin from the Kremlin. Indeed, it is only when Mr Trump and Mr Putin both go that it may truly be possible to reset US-Russian relations.

gideon.rachman@ft.com