If Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s readout of Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin is a preview of the Trump administration’s approach to Russia, it’s going to be a rough three and a half years. In a diplomatic depantsing that will have repercussions far beyond Russia, Tillerson’s comments did more to further Russia’s interests than Russian propaganda outlets could have possibly hoped to accomplish themselves.

Tillerson told reporters that Trump and Putin “acknowledged the challenges of cyber threats and interference in the democratic processes of the United States and other countries.” Well then.

Vladimir Putin acknowledged generic “challenges” of unspecified “cyber threats” related to U.S. elections and those in other countries? Who cares? What Putin wouldn’t acknowledge was far more important: The Russians were the source of the cyber threats.

Let us remember the January 6, 2017 assessment prepared by America’s director of National Intelligence:





Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations . . . We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.

That is the graveyard Tillerson is whistling past.

Tillerson reported that after the two men had a “robust and lengthy exchange on the subject,” Putin “denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past.” Putin’s denials are false, of course, and the offenses are grave. Russia’s election meddling is part of a longer pattern of provocation largely ignored by the Obama administration and now tolerated by Trump. But the president apparently didn’t want to let reality intrude on his desire for better relations (he began his meeting by telling Putin that he was “honored” to meet him) and Tillerson didn’t seem to care. “So, more work to be done on that regard,” Tillerson said, dismissively.

Set aside as yet unproven allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. The available facts are deeply troubling. Russia waged a persistent, hostile campaign against the United States in an effort to affect the outcome of the election – or at least influence perceptions of it. And the current administration doesn’t seem to care.

If that’s where the issue rested after today’s meeting, that’d be bad enough. But Tillerson made matters worse. He offered additional thoughts on what “more work” might be done. Trump and Putin, Tillerson announced, “agreed to explore creating a framework around which the two countries can work together to better understand how to deal with these cyber threats.”

A framework for understanding ? Not consequences? Not sanctions? Not even the threat of retaliation from the United States?

There is no need for a framework of understanding. Vladimir Putin understands what this diplo-feculence means: The Trump administration will not punish him in any way for his aggressive attempts to interfere in the 2016 election. And we don’t need a framework for understanding to see what that’ll mean for future elections—here and elsewhere: It will happen again.

The intelligence community predicted as much six months before Friday’s meeting. As the January 6 report said: “We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.”

In the unlikely event that there was any remaining confusion about U.S. capitulation, Tillerson used a response to a reporter’s question to end it. “I think what the two presidents, I think rightly, focused on is how do we move forward; how do we move forward from here.”

The embarrassment wasn’t limited to interference in U.S. elections. There was Syria, too, where Tillerson claimed that American and Russian “objectives are exactly the same.”

It is absurd to claim that our objectives in Syria—where the United States has called for the end of the Assad regime that Russia is supporting—are exactly the same. Forget being identical; in most cases, they aren’t even coincidental.

On April 6, President Trump ordered strikes on the Shayrat Air Base in Syria in response to chemical weapons attacks conducted by the Syrian regime. In a statement from Mar-a-Lago that evening, Trump said: “Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”

That same night, U.S. officials told me that Russia knew in advance of the chemical weapons attacks. The Russians were flying a drone over a hospital treating victims of the attack, a U.S. official later told the Associated Press: “Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons. The U.S. official said the presence of the surveillance drone over the hospital couldn’t have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known the chemical weapons attack was coming and that victims were seeking treatment.”

So in April the U.S. government accused Russia of complicity in an unprovoked chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. And on Friday, the secretary of State claimed that America and Russia have exactly the same objectives in Syria.

And then Tillerson went even further. On matters where the United States and Russia have different views, he said, it may be that the Russians (who are actively backing a dictator slaughtering his own people) have got “the right approach and we’ve got the wrong approach.” Imagine for a moment the reaction from Republicans if John Kerry had made such a claim.

The Trump administration is selling the Putin meeting as a success because America, Russia, and Jordan have agreed to a ceasefire in southwest Syria. One can hope. The better bet is that the consequences of this public American obsequiousness will last much longer than any ceasefire, particularly one that doesn’t involve the main combatants on the ground.

Tillerson’s readout of the Trump-Putin makes clear that the president is poised to make the same mistakes on Russia made by his two predecessors. George W. Bush was seduced by Putin’s claims of deep faith. Barack Obama proposed a Russian reset despite abundant indications that a real rapprochement was improbable. Both attempts were naïve, but the Trump administration’s gullibility is far worse. In the intervening years, Russia has repeatedly flouted international law and engaged in aggressive, disruptive behavior—the military intervention in Ukraine and attempts to influence the US elections being the most notable examples.

The Trump administration has touted its approach to the world as “principled realism.” But what are the principles that lead to a naive embrace of an adversary? And what kind of realism requires a willful ignorance of reality?

Tillerson summarized the Trump-Putin meeting this way: “The two leaders, I would say, connected very quickly. There was a very clear positive chemistry between the two.”

Yes. And that’s the problem.