After U.S. President Donald Trump’s lengthy meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G20 in Hamburg, Germany, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that the two had discussed Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. After Putin denied any Russian involvement, Tillerson said Trump “is rightly focused” on how to “move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point.” But can the U.S. simply move on from something as serious as an attack on a U.S. election? The Cipher Brief spoke with John McLaughlin, a Cipher Brief Expert and former Acting Director of the CIA to hear his take on the meeting – and what comes next between the two countries.
The Cipher Brief: Are you surprised the meeting extended beyond the scheduled thirty minutes? Afterwards, Secretary of State Tillerson said there was a “clear positive chemistry between the two,” and that the meeting went so long because “neither one of them wanted to stop.” What does that tell you about their relationship, despite all the controversy? Does that suggest anything in terms of the substance discussed?
John McLaughlin, former Acting and Deputy CIA Director: I'm not at all surprised the meeting went so long. I've been convinced that whatever the policy differences are and the levels of political experience between these two individuals, they would have generally personal chemistry.
When I was in Russia shortly before our election and speaking with a number of individuals who work closely with Putin, they described him in terms that sounded very much like Trump on a personal level. “Putin is a transactional individual – that is someone who says ‘if you do this, I will do that.’ Putin is also someone who craves respect above all else and is easily offended when it is not fully given.”
So, on a human level, these two should understand each other pretty well, even though Putin is vastly more experienced in policy and government, having governed Russia in one way or another now for 18 years.
TCB: Secretary of State Tillerson indicated Trump repeatedly brought up the issue of Russian meddling in the U.S. election, and Putin denied it. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said Trump accepted Putin’s denials. Does that indicate the Russians believe they have convinced Trump and can move on, or is it just gamesmanship?
McLaughlin: We need to know more before confidently judging how this all went. On the basis of what has been described so far, it looks like Trump did at least some of what he had to do in this meeting on the election issue. If he repeatedly raised it as Tillerson says, we need to give him credit for doing so.
The Russians of course will deny it, and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has already said that Trump accepted Putin's denial (no surprise and possibly a sign that the two sides heard it differently, a common occurrence in such meetings.) I have been in the position many times of transmitting unassailable U.S. conclusions to Russian officials only to have them deny it and ask for specific evidence, by which they mean sources and methods for the intelligence, which we can never give them.
TCB: Tillerson said Trump “is rightly focused” on how to “move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point.” Have we made any progress? Can the U.S. simply set this dispute aside and move forward with the relationship?
McLaughlin: No, and a careful reading of the White House transcript indicates that Tillerson said we would be returning to this issue and continue working it. We can't set it aside, but it's unrealistic to imagine that it could have been settled in this one meeting, so we will have to keep hammering on it.
TCB: Apparently there was agreement to set up a working group to establish a framework on cyber crime and non-interference in elections. Is that enough?
McLaughlin: I would call it a start, which is probably not a bad characterization for the entire meeting. Cyber is one of the most complex issues facing us, and there was so little precedent compared to an old diplomatic field like arms control. This will take time, focus, and truly heroic diplomacy.
TCB: We’re told the two leaders did discuss other issues, including Ukraine, North Korea, and reaching an agreement for a ceasefire in Syria. Do you think the Trump Administration will now work more aggressively with Russia on issues of mutual concern?
McLaughlin: What's required now is continuous engagement. I believe this worked most effectively in the Clinton administration, when high-level delegations from both administrations met repeatedly about every six weeks to put issues on the table. There was seldom complete agreement, but the two sides could understand where each was coming from, and you could hope for incremental progress, which sometimes occurred.
