Trump Would Have Made Prisoner Exchange Deal More Complicated*

*Editor’s note: On March 4, 2022, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

Donald Trump, the 45th U.S. president, claimed that America lost in the recent prisoner exchange deal, prompting varied reactions in the West. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz admitted it was not an easy decision for him. Meanwhile, many observers believe this event may signal the start of a significant dialogue between Moscow and Washington. Dmitry Drize, a political observer for Kommersant FM, partially supports this view.

Donald Trump argued the deal was a win for Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting that the U.S. came out on the losing side. He implied that, had he been president, the U.S. could have brought American citizens back without any exchange. Notably, Paul Whelan, one of the individuals who was released was arrested in December 2018 and sentenced to 16 years in January 2021 during Trump’s term. His release was achieved through what Trump described as a flawed deal under incumbent President Joe Biden.

Chancellor Scholz noted that reaching a decision on the exchange was difficult. However, he prioritized the welfare of German citizens and could not refuse a strong appeal from Biden. The chancellor regards the current president highly, which fostered a compromise. It is believed that Vadim Krasikov was a key figure in the exchange. Krasikov was serving a life sentence in Germany for the murder of Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, a Chechen field commander known for his aggressive actions against Russia. Despite his violent past, Germany had granted Khangoshvili political asylum.

Khangoshvili was assassinated in broad daylight in Berlin’s Tiergarten park, an act that authorities viewed as a deliberate provocation. Krasikov was imprisoned, and Germany long resisted the idea of an exchange. Why? It’s not hard to guess — such actions set a precedent. An agent caught in the civilized West might not have to worry too much because eventually the agent might be released and resume their activities without much concern. Western citizens visiting Russia and Belarus, whether journalists, aid workers or simply someone visiting a “girlfriend,” all face serious risk.

Although Krasikov wasn’t a traditional spy but someone who “eliminates” enemies, the exchange raises complex issues. Exchanging Russian citizens — who may have made mistakes but are still fellow nationals — for others of the same nationality poses legal and ethical questions. It implies a division between “good” Russians and “bad” Russians who are beyond redemption. Is imprisonment meant to rehabilitate? If so, it seems unlikely that the prisoners who were exchanged will be rehabilitated. Additionally, the pool of prisoners to exchange is itself a point of concern. There are numerous unanswered questions about these exchanges that need to be addressed.

As for Trump and Scholz, Trump’s remarks suggest that Biden is respected and could not be denied. The phrase “It would have been more complicated to deal with the 45th president of the U.S.” is appropriate. The deal might not have happened at all under Trump. Thus, Russia agreed to conduct the exchange with Biden rather than waiting for a potentially more accommodating leader.

The stakes are high, as Democrats aim to address many global issues before the election. The current situation shows they are prepared to make certain compromises, offering a chance to negotiate on a wide range of issues, including a new global security framework.

In this context, new prisoner exchanges may be necessary to reduce global tension. While this might sound idealistic, maintaining some level of optimism seems appropriate.