Trump 'absolved' Putin of war crimes 'in front of the world', Democrat senator says
independent.co.uk -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 4:24:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
A key senator on the Foreign Relations committee called Donald Trump's Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin a "disaster" Sunday and blamed the U.S. president for legitimizing his Russian opponent in front of the world.
"It was an embarrassment for the United States. It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted," said Chris Murphy, the ranking Democratic member of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on European security cooperation.
Murphy told NBC's Meet the Press that Trump was forced to abandon his main commitment -- a call for a ceasefire -- during the meeting and was similarly unable to convince Putin to drop demands for Ukraine to cede more territory, something the senator from Connecticut said was "stunning" to see a U.S. president consider.
"He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world. He was invited to the United States -- war criminals are not normally invited to the United States of America," Murphy said.
Trump "walked out of that meeting saying, 'I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions,'" the senator continued. "And so Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made, and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia."
Murphy's comments to NBC come as two top Trump officials who traveled with the president to Alaska for the summit Friday, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, did the rounds on separate Sunday morning programs defending the outcome of the president's meeting with Putin.
The optics of the meeting are being endlessly scrutinized in the mainstream press, partly due to the few specifics released so far about what the two men discussed.
Among those moments been picked apart by analysts included the arrival of the Russian president, which was preceded by U.S. troops, in uniform, rolling out a red carpet on the tarmac.
On Sunday, Witkoff told CNN'S State of the Union that the U.S. secured what he claimed was a "game-changing" development in the discussions: Putin's willingness to consider accepting a U.S. security agreement protecting the future sovereignty of Ukraine's borders. This was the first time negotiators were able to gain ground on the issue, he explained.
"We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO," he said.
Witkoff wouldn't specify whether the security guarantee could lead to what Trump and his followers have long opposed -- a promise to directly engage U.S. troops in defense of Ukraine should Russia continue crossing Trump's red lines.
Murphy, on Sunday, seemed to imply that such a guarantee would be the bare minimum standard necessary for any peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.
"That [security guarantee] is an essential element of a peace agreement because any commitment that Vladimir Putin makes to not invade Ukraine again isn't worth the paper that it's written on," said the senator. "He's made that commitment many times. So yes, there has to be a guarantee that if Putin were to enter Ukraine after a peace settlement, that there would be some force there, a U.S. force, a U.S.-European force there to defend Ukraine."
He would go on to hammer Trump over reports that Witkoff wouldn't confirm when pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper, which revealed that Trump had signaled his own willingness to accept Russian demands for Ukraine to cede the entire occupied Donbas region as part of a potential agreement. Murphy said that the reported development was "another sense that Putin is just in charge of these negotiations."
Chris Van Hollen, another Democrat on the Foreign Relations panel, was equally critical of Trump's meeting with the Russian president during an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz on This Week.
Heading into Friday's summit, Trump warned of "severe consequences" if Russia continued to oppose peace efforts and said that he was working towards an immediate ceasefire. Afterwards, he claimed in a Truth Social post that "It was determined by all [in attendance] that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up."
Van Hollen called this news a "setback" for the U.S.'s European allies and Ukraine, while accusing Trump of being "flattered" by Putin.
"There's no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and Zelensky," said Van Hollen.
Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to the Biden administration, agreed.
"President Trump's stated goals were very simple, get an immediate ceasefire, and in the absence of a ceasefire, impose what he called severe consequences," Sullivan said. "Well, the summit has come and gone. There is no ceasefire. There are no consequences."
Trump is now scheduled to meet Monday with European leaders including Finnish president Alexander Stubb, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron and the UK's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Stubb is known for his personal relationship with Trump, and is poised to be on-hand to quell any disputes between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, who will also be in attendance.
Zelensky is reported to be wholly opposed to any demand to recognize Russian occupation of the Donbas as legitimate.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent comments from Senator Chris Murphy regarding former President Donald Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin shine a glaring light on the troubling dynamics of U.S.-Russia relations and the implications for global security. Murphy's assertion that Trump effectively legitimized Putin on the world stage, while failing to secure any meaningful commitments from the Russian leader, underscores a broader critique of how political power can be wielded or misused in the context of international diplomacy. The senator's remarks not only encapsulate concerns about the direct consequences of Trump's foreign policy but also evoke a historical narrative that has long shaped U.S. engagement with authoritarian regimes.
Historically, the United States has grappled with how to deal with authoritarian leaders, oscillating between confrontation and engagement. The Cold War era provides a pertinent backdrop; during this period, U.S. leaders often found themselves navigating a complex relationship with Soviet leaders, where the balance of power dictated diplomatic interactions. The fallout from these relationships frequently resulted in missed opportunities for genuine peace and cooperation, a pattern that seems to be resurrected in the context of Trump’s dealings with Putin. The failure to hold leaders accountable for war crimes, as Murphy noted, signals a troubling precedent where the decorum of diplomacy is prioritized over human rights and international law.
Moreover, the optics of Trump's summit, highlighted by the red carpet rolled out for Putin, further complicates the narrative of American exceptionalism. This moment symbolized not just a meeting of two leaders but a broader capitulation to authoritarianism that undermines democratic principles. The implications extend beyond the immediate context, as they resonate with the ongoing struggles for democracy and human rights around the world. By failing to challenge Putin on his aggressive actions in Ukraine, Trump not only emboldened the Russian president but also sent a message to other authoritarian regimes that the U.S. may not uphold its professed values in the face of power.
The potential security agreements mentioned by Trump’s aides, such as offering Ukraine protection akin to Article 5 of NATO, bring to light the complexities of military alliances and the necessity of solidarity in the face of aggression. However, these assurances cannot be seen as genuine unless backed by a willingness to act decisively against violations of sovereignty. The inconsistency in U.S. policy—where the rhetoric of support for Ukraine does not align with actionable commitments—poses risks not only for Ukraine but for the integrity of international law itself. It raises the question of what constitutes a credible deterrent against aggression and how the United States can authentically position itself as a defender of democratic values.
In a broader context, the reflections on Trump’s approach to Putin should serve as a rallying point for those advocating for a more principled foreign policy. The failures of this summit highlight the need for a commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation, particularly as the world faces critical challenges such as climate change, global health crises, and rampant inequality. Engaging with adversaries is essential, but it must be done through a lens of accountability and justice. The lessons learned from this encounter with Putin can inform a renewed vision for foreign relations—one that prioritizes human rights, respects international law, and seeks to build a more equitable global order.
Ultimately, the ramifications of the Trump-Putin summit extend far beyond the immediate political landscape; they serve as a reminder of the responsibilities that come with leadership on the world stage. As individuals and communities engage in conversations about foreign policy, it is crucial to advocate for a framework that fosters accountability and justice. The stakes are high, and the need for the United States to act as a force for good in the world has never been clearer. By reflecting on these historical lessons and their contemporary implications, we can better articulate a vision for a foreign policy that aligns with the values we claim to uphold, ensuring a safer and more just world for all.
The recent summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has ignited considerable debate regarding the implications of their meeting for international relations and American foreign policy. Senator Chris Murphy’s characterization of the summit as a "disaster" points to a broader concern that transcends partisan lines: the legitimacy bestowed upon authoritarian regimes by Western leaders. This incident highlights the significance of diplomatic engagement and the importance of holding leaders accountable for their actions. It also invites a closer examination of how the United States can navigate the complex geopolitical landscape while upholding democratic values and human rights.
Historically, the United States has positioned itself as a champion of democracy and a critic of authoritarianism. The post-World War II order, built on the principles of democratic governance and human rights, was established in direct opposition to the fascist and totalitarian regimes that had wreaked havoc across Europe and Asia. However, incidents like the Trump-Putin summit signal a troubling shift away from these ideals. By meeting with leaders like Putin—who has been accused of war crimes and suppressing dissent—American presidents send a message that the U.S. is willing to overlook egregious human rights violations for the sake of political expediency. This not only undermines the moral authority of the U.S. but also emboldens authoritarian leaders to act with impunity.
In light of these developments, Americans must take proactive steps to advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes human rights and accountability. Engaging in grassroots activism, educating ourselves and others about the implications of appeasing authoritarian regimes, and holding elected officials accountable are essential components of this effort. Citizens can participate in town halls, contact their representatives, and utilize social media to raise awareness about the importance of upholding democratic values in international relations. Additionally, supporting organizations that promote human rights and democratic governance—such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch—can help amplify the voices of those who are oppressed.
Moreover, as we navigate discussions with individuals who may support the normalization of relations with authoritarian leaders, it’s crucial to frame arguments around shared values rather than political affiliations. Emphasizing the historical understanding of American exceptionalism in defending democracy can serve as a potent argument against the perceived legitimacy given to leaders like Putin. By articulating the risks associated with undermining democratic principles—both at home and abroad—citizens can foster a more nuanced dialogue that encourages critical thinking and awareness of the consequences of foreign policy decisions.
The optics of the summit, particularly the red carpet rolled out for Putin, serve as a powerful symbol of the message conveyed by such meetings. It illustrates the normalization of relationships with those who violate international norms and human rights. In advocating for a more principled foreign policy, Americans can call for diplomatic strategies that prioritize collaboration with democratic allies and impose consequences on those who engage in military aggression or human rights abuses. This could involve advocating for sanctions, supporting international coalitions, and leveraging diplomatic channels to hold leaders accountable.
In conclusion, the Trump-Putin summit provides a critical lens through which to examine American foreign policy and the importance of upholding democratic values on the global stage. By engaging in informed discussions, supporting human rights organizations, and advocating for accountability, we can contribute to a movement that resists the normalization of authoritarianism and promotes a foreign policy rooted in the principles of democracy and human rights. In doing so, we can ensure that the United States remains a beacon of hope for those fighting for freedom and justice around the world.
The recent summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin highlights significant concerns about U.S. foreign policy and its implications for global peace and security. As engaged citizens, we have the power to advocate for stronger, more principled foreign relations that prioritize human rights and international law. Here is a list of actionable steps we can take to address these issues:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others:** - Stay informed on U.S.-Russia relations and implications for global security. - Share articles, host discussions, or create forums to raise awareness.
2. **Communicate with Elected Officials:** - Reach out to your representatives to express your concerns about foreign policy decisions and the normalization of relations with authoritarian leaders.
3. **Support Advocacy Organizations:** - Contribute time or resources to organizations that promote peace, human rights, and accountability in foreign policy.
4. **Engage in the Democratic Process:** - Participate in local and national elections, supporting candidates who prioritize human rights and a strong stance against war crimes.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Contact Elected Officials:** - Write or email your senators and representatives to express your views on the recent summit and advocate for a strong stance against legitimizing war criminals.
**Sample Contacts:** - **Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT)** - Email: murphy.senate.gov/contact - USPS Address: 30 Lewis Street, Suite 201, Hartford, CT 06103
- **Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)** - Email: rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact - USPS Address: 284 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
- **Senator Steve Witkoff (R)** - Email: witkoff.senate.gov/contact - USPS Address: 1005 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
**What to Say:** - Clearly express your disappointment in the summit's outcome and urge your representative to hold leaders accountable for war crimes. Example message: "Dear [Senator/Representative Name], I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent summit between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. It is imperative that our leaders do not legitimize those who commit war crimes. I urge you to advocate for strong sanctions against Russia and to prioritize efforts for a peaceful resolution in Ukraine."
2. **Sign and Share Petitions:** - Look for petitions that call for accountability for war crimes or advocate for stronger U.S. foreign policy towards Russia. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org often have relevant petitions.
Example Petition: "Demand Accountability for War Crimes in Ukraine" (search on popular petition sites).
3. **Join or Support Relevant Organizations:** - Consider joining organizations that focus on foreign policy and human rights, such as: - **Human Rights Watch**: www.hrw.org - **Amnesty International**: www.amnesty.org
4. **Attend Local Events and Rallies:** - Participate in peace rallies or town hall meetings discussing U.S.-Russia relations. Check local community boards or social media platforms for events.
5. **Advocate on Social Media:** - Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to raise awareness about the implications of meeting with authoritarian leaders. Share articles, personal insights, and encourage discussions.
By taking these steps, you can contribute to a broader movement advocating for a more just and principled foreign policy. It’s vital that we, as citizens, hold our leaders accountable and push for a foreign policy that values human rights and peace.