In a new book by veteran journalist Bob Woodward, a striking claim has emerged: former President Donald Trump may have spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin as many as seven times since leaving office. The book also alleges that, while still president in 2020, Trump sent Covid-19 testing equipment to Putin for his personal use during the early days of the pandemic. The Trump campaign has denied the claim, and when asked about it, Trump commented, “I don’t comment on that… But I will tell you that if I did, it’s a smart thing. If I’m friendly with people, if I can have a relationship with people, that’s a good thing and not a bad thing in terms of a country.”

This revelation has reignited debate around Trump’s relationship with Putin and whether it represents shrewd diplomacy or something more troubling. Supporters of Trump argue that his approach to foreign relations is one of strength and pragmatism, while critics see these allegations as further evidence of an overly cozy relationship with a longtime adversary of the U.S.

The Case for Pragmatic Diplomacy

Throughout his presidency, Trump positioned himself as a disruptor of the traditional diplomatic approach, favoring personal relationships and direct dialogue with foreign leaders. His defenders argue that this style reflects his background as a businessman, where personal rapport often plays a key role in negotiations. They point out that Trump’s direct communication with authoritarian leaders, including Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, helped prevent escalations during his time in office.

In his defense of these alleged contacts with Putin, Trump framed his approach as pragmatic, saying, “If I’m friendly with people, if I can have a relationship with people, that’s a good thing and not a bad thing.” This line of thinking suggests that maintaining open channels of communication, even with adversaries, can reduce tensions and promote stability.

Supporters also highlight the fact that during Trump’s presidency, Russia did not engage in a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. They credit Trump’s unpredictable nature and his tough rhetoric on NATO spending as key factors in keeping Putin’s ambitions in check. Furthermore, Trump’s administration provided military aid to Ukraine, including lethal aid that President Barack Obama’s administration had been hesitant to supply. These actions suggest that Trump’s relationship with Putin did not translate into leniency on key issues.

Concerns Over Trump’s Relationship with Putin

However, critics see these revelations in a much different light. Many view Trump’s friendly stance toward Putin as part of a broader pattern of behavior that appears to downplay Russia’s threat to U.S. interests. David A. Graham, writing for The Atlantic, argues that “evidence keeps piling up that Trump is weak to any Putin overture—that Putin can get Trump to do what he wants.” Graham points to moments like the 2018 Helsinki Summit, where Trump seemed to side with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies, and Trump’s reluctance to confront Putin on Russia’s election interference in a 2019 phone call, as examples of this dynamic.

Critics also point out that since leaving office, Trump has continued to praise Putin, even as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has drawn widespread condemnation. Trump has claimed that the war would not have occurred on his watch, but opponents argue that his past interactions with Putin suggest a hesitancy to hold the Russian leader accountable. Graham poses the question: if Trump maintains influence over Putin, why hasn’t he used that to pressure Russia to end the war in Ukraine?

The allegation that Trump may have sent Covid-19 testing equipment to Putin for personal use also raises concerns about the nature of their relationship. While it’s not unusual for countries to provide aid to one another during global crises, the idea that a U.S. president would single out a foreign leader—especially one as controversial as Putin—could be seen as crossing a line from diplomacy to preferential treatment.

A Complex Relationship with Lasting Implications

Trump’s relationship with Putin has always been complex and controversial. His critics accuse him of being too accommodating to a foreign adversary, while his supporters see his willingness to engage directly with Putin as a strategic move to safeguard American interests. Both views have merit, and the answer may lie somewhere in between.

On one hand, Trump’s unorthodox approach to foreign policy did yield results. His administration took concrete actions to deter Russian aggression, from imposing sanctions to bolstering NATO’s defenses. Additionally, Trump’s assertive stance toward NATO allies, pressuring them to increase their defense spending, was intended to strengthen the alliance’s ability to counter Russian influence in Europe.

On the other hand, Trump’s public praise of Putin and his reluctance to confront him on sensitive issues has fueled speculation that he is too eager to please the Russian leader. His decision to send testing equipment, if true, could be interpreted as a favor, rather than a calculated diplomatic gesture. The secrecy around Trump’s personal conversations with Putin, coupled with his refusal to criticize Russia’s human rights abuses or aggressive actions in Ukraine, continues to raise red flags.

Conclusion: Diplomacy or Danger?

Trump’s post-presidency conversations with Putin, if they indeed happened, raise important questions about the boundaries of diplomatic engagement. Should former U.S. presidents maintain close personal ties with foreign leaders, especially those who are adversaries of the United States? Is there a risk that such relationships might undermine current U.S. policy or national security?

In Trump’s view, his relationships with foreign leaders are an extension of his strategy to negotiate and deal directly, aiming to prevent conflict and promote peace. To his supporters, his willingness to maintain open lines of communication is a strength, not a liability. But to his critics, the potential for these interactions to erode trust in U.S. institutions and align too closely with foreign interests cannot be ignored.

As Trump remains a prominent political figure, especially with the 2024 election on the horizon, his approach to foreign relations—and his relationship with Putin—will undoubtedly continue to be scrutinized. Whether viewed as pragmatic diplomacy or problematic coziness, Trump’s interactions with the Russian leader will be a focal point in any future discussions of his legacy and potential return to power.