President Trump’s had a very bad week.

By appearing to side with Russia over his own intelligence agencies on the question of election interference, he made himself look unpatriotic, anti-American and as weak as a ‘wet noodle’ to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Trump’s subsequent attempt to wriggle off his self-imposed hook by claiming he meant to say ‘wouldn’t’ not ‘would’ was laugh-out-loud ridiculous.

But at least he seemed to realise the offence his original comments had caused.

Trump has had a bad week, siding with Russia, wriggling out of what he said, but then Thursday doubling down on his support for Putin by inviting him to DC

Yesterday, Trump reverted to type and doubled down on the furore by inviting Russian president Vladimir Putin to the White House in a few months time.

This was news to his own intelligence chief Dan Coats, who chuckled with incredulity when the news was broken to him during a live interview by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

And predictably, it has sparked widespread outrage.

Let’s be honest, every single thing Trump says or does these days sparks widespread outrage.

It’s not a coincidence.

There’s a 24/7 outrage industry surrounding Trump which handsomely rewards those who participate in it – be they cable news networks, newspapers, late night talk shows, or politically-motivated entertainers on social media.

Relentless Trump-bashing is hugely popular, and the more frenzied the better. It directly translates into substantially higher TV ratings, newspaper subscriptions, and for the entertainers - ticket/book/album sales.

So his most ardent critics all have a big vested financial interest in mocking and abusing the President every minute of every day.

Now, some of it he thoroughly deserves. He does and says some very dumb things, as we saw in Helsinki this week.

And some of his policies, like the short-lived illegal immigrant child separation fiasco, warrant genuine outrage.

But a lot of the Trump hysteria is overblown and misplaced, and the refusal to give him credit for anything is absurd.

He is being widely mocked and some of it he thoroughly deserves. As we saw in Helsinki with Putin, he does and says some very dumb things. But a lot of the hysteria is overblown and misplaced, and the refusal to give him credit for anything is absurd

For example, I think he’s absolutely right to wage a trade war with China, a country that has economically pillaged America for decades.

I also think he’s absolutely right to hammer NATO nations like Germany for not paying their due whack on defence funding.

And I thought he was absolutely right to tell Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May some tough home truths about her increasingly disastrous Brexit strategy.

There’s also no doubt that Trump’s tenure has, to date, been very good for America’s economy and jobs.

So there can often be effective method to the apparent bull-in-a-china-shop madness.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with his foreign policy.

The critics say Trump’s systematically wrecking every relationship America has on the world stage.

But is he?

His decision to go and meet North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un was by any yardstick a bold and high risk one.

Yet so far, it seems to have worked; North Korea has curtailed its missile tests and is now engaged with America in genuine dialogue about denuclearisation.

For decades, successive US presidents did nothing to stop North Korea as it steadily increased its nuclear capability.

Now they seem prepared to at least seriously discuss it, and Trump and Jong-un appear to have developed a good relationship.

His decision to go and meet North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un was high risk. Yet so far, it seems to have worked; North Korea has curtailed its missile tests and is now engaged with America in genuine dialogue about denuclearisation. Trump and Jong-un appear to have developed a good relationship

Surely Trump’s concerted effort to avert nuclear war with a dangerous rogue power by trying a new approach is a good thing?

Then there’s Russia.

Yes, Trump had a terrible press conference in Helsinki.

In his desperation to avoid people thinking Russian hackers got him elected, he made himself and America look embarrassingly supine.

But what we don’t know is what happened behind closed doors between him and Putin in their two-hour meeting.

And that could turn out to be one of the most fruitful and mutually beneficial meetings in recent US presidential history.

I once asked President Bill Clinton about his tactics with Putin when they crossed over as world leaders for a year in 2000/2001.

‘Putin’s a hard man,’ he told me. ‘A very hard man. But he respects strength and remarkably we had a good, blunt relationship. We used to kick everyone out of the room then go at it with each other. And I mean GO at it. It would get brutally blunt in there. But we’d get stuff done and agree on things.’

Did Putin honour those agreements?

‘Yes he did, every time. He kept his word on all the deals we made.’

As to how he talked about Putin in public, Clinton said: ‘I always believed you should try to be honest with people in private and if you want them to help you, try to avoid embarrassing them in public.’

This may help explain Trump’s bizarre conduct in Helsinki.

He tweeted yesterday that he and Putin had discussed a wide range of issues including terrorism, Israel, nuclear proliferation, the Ukraine, Middle East peace and North Korea - as well as cyber attacks.

Perhaps Trump took a leaf out of Clinton’s book and went hard with Putin in private, then deliberately chose not to be aggressive or confrontational towards him in public?

Perhaps like Bill Clinton would recommend, went hard with Putin in private, then deliberately chose not to be aggressive or confrontational towards him in public?

We don’t know yet, but the proof will be in the pudding.

What is undeniable is that Russia has acted with increasing impunity in recent years, and been allowed to get away with it - not least by Obama’s pathetic refusal to act on his infamous red line in Syria, a decision that emboldened Putin to steam in on Assad’s side and take control.

This inaction against Russia’s aggression has made the world a more not less dangerous place.

If Trump can now build a new relationship with Putin going forward that enables the US and Russia to collaborate on many mutually important issues rather than being at each others throats all the time, then surely we should encourage this?

As Sir Winston Churchill said: ‘To jaw-jaw is better than war-war.’

He also said: ‘The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.’

Trump has been very scathing about modern US foreign policy that’s led to seemingly endless war in the Middle East at a cost of trillions of dollars to the US economy.

As a businessman, he thinks it’s all been a shocking waste of money – and frankly, it’s very hard to argue that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria have done anything but cost life, drain cash and cause huge humanitarian crises.

Trump also says he’s been harder on Putin than any president, and actually there is some genuine merit to that claim.

He’s imposed far tougher sanctions on Russia than Obama, severely punished dozens of Russian oligarchs and government officials, threw out 60 diplomats after the Skripal nerve agent attack in Britain, publicly lambasted Russia for using oil to hold many NATO countries hostage, agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, which Obama had resisted, and gave US forces in Syria more freedom to engage with Russian forces.

‘When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold-War area,’ Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told NPR.

Maybe there is a method to his some of his seemingly bizarre public comments. As Trump told me on Air Force One a week ago, he just wants peace

So, as so often with Trump, it’s important to look beyond the inflammatory or hyperbolic words and focus on his actual actions.

When I interviewed him a week ago on Air Force One, Trump explained why he’s getting in the room with traditional US enemies like North Korea and Russia.

‘I’d like to see peace. A lot of people thought we’re going to be at war with Trump as President. Well here it is - we’re getting rid of wars. We’re actually getting out of wars.’

‘Look, if we can get along with Russia that’s a good thing. For the United States to get along with Russia and China and all these other places…. Piers that’s a good thing, that’s not a bad thing. That’s a really good thing.’

Whether you love or loathe Trump, and notwithstanding his horrendous performance at that Helsinki press conference, he’s got a point hasn’t he?