Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak Complains That Working With Trump Is Difficult

Poor baby.

U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, left, next to Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, May 10, 2017. Russian Foreign Ministry Photo via AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

This is rich. Outgoing Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak complains in a new interview that the deeply divided political climate in the United Statesā€”the same atmosphere of controversy and mistrust his government helped to usher in with its attack on the US presidential electionā€”has made it difficult for the Kremlin to advance its agenda in Washington.

The Trump administration “has not taken any real steps” toward the president’s promise to boost cooperation with Russia, Kislyak gripes in an interview posted Wednesday by Russian news agency TASS. “Work with Donald Trumpā€™s administration is unfolding uneasily,” he notes. “The internal political struggle in the United States has dealt a heavy blow to Russian-U.S. relations. Sometimes, you are surprised at the ease with which the American establishment is ready to sacrifice normalcy in our relations.ā€

Relations between Russia and the United States are anything but normal at the moment, especially after (as US intelligence agencies have concluded) the Kremlin’s interfered in the election to help Trump win the presidency. Kremlin-backed hackers stole and released emails from Democratic targets, deployed social-media bots to push pro-Trump messaging, and probed local election infrastructure in at least 21 states.  

But Kislyak complains that despite Russian hopes that Trump would undo economic sanctions imposed after Russiaā€™s 2014 incursion into Ukraine, the new administration has expanded the penalties. Meanwhile, Congress is moving toward imposing additional sanctions against Russia and barring the executive branch from unwinding the rules without congressional approval. The potential new sanctions are “another headache,” Kislyak says.

During the transition, Trump gave the Russians reason for optimism. In late Decemberā€”on the same day when the Obama administration expelled 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives and shuttered two Russian diplomatic compounds in retaliation for Russia’s election hackingā€”Kislyak exchanged phone calls and text messages with former Lt. General Michael Flynn about the newly imposed sanctions. The Washington Post reported that Flynn suggested the penalties that Obama imposed would be reconsidered after Trump took office. Flynn lost his job as Trump’s national security adviser and is being investigated partly as a result of lying about those contacts.

Kislyak and Flynn also communicated during the presidential campaign, the ambassador told the Washington Post. Kislyak claimed the contacts were benign but refused to say what subjects they discussed. That could be a key subject for US investigators to examine. 

Kislyak has not given up on Trump. He tells TASS he hopes a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin Friday at a G-20 summit in Hamburg will “determine in which direction interaction between our countries will further develop.”

“There are always opportunities for positive turnarounds,” Kislyak says.

Indeed, Trump has sent the Russians positive signals. The last time Trump met with Russian officialsā€”Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovā€”the president was accommodating. He disclosed highly classified information related to Israel’s intelligence gathering on the Islamic State. Trump, who has dismissed Russian meddling in the 2016 election as fake news designed to excuse Hillary Clintonā€™s loss, has no firm agenda for the Putin meeting, according to national security adviser H.R. McMaster. And White House officials have said Trump does not plan to bring up Russian interference to Putin.

So is Kislyak truly upset about Trump? Given that he represents a regime that ran a covert operation to subvert the 2016 election to help Trump, his statements probably shouldn’t be accepted at face value. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate