EXPERT INTERVIEWS – President Donald Trump is defied diplomatic norms with a pair of conversations this week over bringing an end to Russia's war in Ukraine. Trump spoke Wednesday with the leaders of Ukraine and Russia, but it was his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin that sparked unease and even fear in many parts of Europe.
According to both the White House and the Kremlin, the call lasted for an hour and a half and was described as cordial and constructive. In Russia, some of the harshest critics of the U.S. cheered the news. "Europe is mad with jealousy and rage," former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev wrote on Telegram. "It shows its real role in the world. Europe's time is over."
The Trump-Putin conversation and the proposed meeting appeared to have blindsided officials in Kyiv and many other European capitals and reignited fears that the U.S. is jumpstarting a negotiating process without adequately involving the Ukrainians and their European allies.
Those concerns were amplified by President Trump’s statement that he plans to meet in-person with Putin, possibly in Saudi Arabia, and by comments made by Trump‘s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. In Brussels on Wednesday, Hegseth said that NATO membership was not in the cards for Ukraine, and that it was “unrealistic“ for the Ukrainians to expect the return of territory that Russia has conquered since its full-scale invasion in February 2022.
The veteran Swedish diplomat and politician Carl Bildt wrote in a post on X: "It's certainly an innovative approach to a negotiation,” Bildt wrote, “to make very major concessions even before they have started.”
On Thursday, Trump and Hegseth sought to walk back some of their statements. When asked whether Ukraine would have a seat at the negotiating table with Russia, Trump said: “Of course they would. I mean, they’re part of it. We would have Ukraine, we would have Russia and we would have other people involved, too.”
So, are there actual national security risks associated with this kind of direct political communication between the leaders?
The Cipher Brief spoke with two former senior CIA officials with long experience on Russia – former CIA Acting Director John McLaughlin and former chief of the agency's Central Eurasia division Rob Dannenberg – about the potential upsides and dangers of such a meeting.
Comments have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
THE EXPERTS
McLaughlin: I’ve written in the past, and taken criticism for the idea, that we should probably not shy away from meeting with adversaries. Putin, however, is a special case. He’s not just an adversary. He’s someone who has aggressively invaded another country, and so far he has not been all that impressed with our efforts to discourage that or punish it. So he’s in a special category. But if President Trump wants to do this, he’s probably going to do it. And I wouldn’t say it’s a totally bad idea, because there’s merit in understanding Putin better.
But there are big caveats here. The first is that just getting a meeting with the American president would be a gift to Putin, a big win for him because this war has made him, at least in the northern hemisphere, somewhat of a pariah. He’s still received in some parts of Latin America and the Middle East, of course, but in terms of our allies and the countries that are closest to him, except for China and North Korea, he’s a pariah. So this would be, in a way, getting out of the penalty box just to meet with the American president.
So it’s a gift, and in return for a gift, the American president ought to get something before this even starts. Putin is a KGB case officer. He’s a trained recruiter of other human beings. President Trump, I think, is feeling a great deal of confidence right now, as he should. I have a sense that he thinks he is able to walk in and be as manipulative and effective with a human being that he’s sitting across from as I think Putin is. I would be skeptical of that. And I don’t mean that critically of President Trump — I would say it about any president going to meet Putin. Know in advance what you want at the end. Putin will know that – he will not come in improvisationally. So on the American side, Trump would have to know, very clearly, What do I want at the end of this?
Second, such a meeting ought to be prepared by Trump’s advisors. He shouldn’t go anywhere near Putin until a number of people who work for him [do so] — his Secretary of State, his National Security Advisor, it could be someone lower level, someone who is credible with Putin and whom Putin knows has access to the President. Before the President gets anywhere near Putin, all of that should be prepared in advance.
That implies, of course, that you know what you’re trying to get and that you’re willing to not have the meeting if it appears you’re not going to succeed. Sometimes presidents go to meetings and their job is to close something that isn’t quite closed yet. Trump would feel confident that he could do that, but I would not try that with Putin.
Third point, the president shouldn’t do this without close consultation with our NATO allies, particularly the frontline states, and of course with Ukraine itself. In other words, Zelensky should be on the same page as President Trump before President Trump meets with Putin, because who has more at stake in this than the Ukrainians? And Putin is not in a winning position here. He’s lost or had injured somewhere around 600,000 people. He’s had to draw on North Korean troops. This is not something someone would do if they were fully confident of their reserve capability and their ability to mobilize. So Putin is not in a very strong position here.
The Cipher Brief Honors Dinner is on April 18th in Washington D.C. Apply now for your seat at the most glamorous spy dinner of the year. Find out more about this invite-only event at cipherbriefhonors.com
What would worry me is that the United States would agree to a negotiated settlement to the war without firm security guarantees for Ukraine, and there would be a temptation to do that, to declare victory and step away from this. My conviction, based on following the Russians for a long time and listening to the Europeans, is that [Putin] would come at Ukraine again once he had rebuilt, and we would be right back in the same awful decision box that he put us into by invading Ukraine. Moreover, he would be tempted to seek some kind of provocation with regard to the Baltics or some of the frontline states like Poland or the Czech Republic. And all of the Europeans are afraid of this.
It seems to me the overarching strategic goal should be some security for Ukraine beyond whatever agreement is reached. It doesn’t have to mean that Putin withdraws completely from Ukraine — it could mean that Zelensky agrees to cede some of the territory that Putin has taken, but in return for assurances of sovereignty and security on the bulk of Ukraine. That’s not the preferred outcome, of course, but realistically that’s all that’s left after the fighting and negotiating is over.
Then the tough point is how do you get their security after that? It could be a series of bilateral agreements between the United States and Ukraine, Germany and Ukraine, Poland and Ukraine, other European countries and Ukraine. Putin would see through this pretty quickly and realize that’s not NATO membership, but it is the military equivalent of it, and maybe stronger in some ways because it wouldn’t necessarily require unanimous consent as NATO intervention would. Of course, NATO membership would be the ideal outcome. But short of that, then some kind of security arrangement that would rely more on bilateral arrangements, because if you don’t have the Allies involved in this, and something goes bad, we’re kind of on our own. It would be foolish to go in without some kind of prior consultation, if not complete unity, on every sentence or every idea.
We don’t know the nature of [Trump’s] relationship with Putin. I don’t mean to suggest anything illicit or clandestine. I just mean that when he met with Putin before, there’s no real record of that. We don’t really know what kind of personal chemistry there is, what they might have talked about. Leaders, when they do this, there’s a residue they both remember. Again, we’re talking about this as though Putin’s just another senior bad guy we may meet with, but we really have to say, at the end of the day – remember, he did an awful thing here. He broke all the rules. He’s an indicted war criminal. He’s not the normal bad leader — he’s a pariah.
The thing I would worry about with President Trump is that he’s very confident and I think he believes he can walk into a room, sit down with people, understand them, like a case officer, and move them to his position. And I don’t think that’s how you deal with Putin. He’s not very strong right now, but he’s very savvy, shrewd, kind of a feral character and very much defending what he sees as Russian interests. And he’s not a nice guy.
Dannenberg: The outcome of meetings [between Trump and Putin, and Zelensky] will be watched closely by what’s left of the ‘Axis of Resistance’, by the People’s Republic of China and other nations that are closely or tenuously aligned with the anti-western coalition that President Putin has orchestrated and led since at least 2008.
The results will also be closely watched by U.S. allies in the West and around the globe who are looking for a signal as to whether the second Trump administration is more representative of what history remembers of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who led his country to victory in World War II, or British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who upheld a policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany during his time in office from 1937-1940.
Russian sources are suggesting that a Trump-Putin meeting will include discussion of nuclear arms control, global energy prices, the situation in the Middle East, and Trump’s stated aim to bring a swift end to the Ukraine war (those paying close attention will note the use of the term “war” rather than “Special Military Operation” which is what the Russian have been calling their barbaric actions in Ukraine for the past three years).
To an experienced Russia hand, the other issues on the agenda take a distant second place to discussions meant to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine. Clearly, no serious negotiations can take place without the participation of Ukraine at every level.
Putin will be well prepared for this meeting, and will remember Trump’s lack of preparation and failure to bring aides or notetakers to their private meeting in Helsinki in 2018. Other than the two Presidents, the only other attendee was a Russian-provided interpreter. This was a mistake and should not be repeated.
As a trained former operations officer, the Russian President is experienced and detail-oriented. His preparations will certainly include messaging designed to play on what he believes to be weaknesses in Trump’s character and ego. It will be to the advantage of the free world if the Trump team is prepared and clearly signals to Putin that he is entering the meeting in a weak negotiating position, and is dealing with a confident U.S. administration that is prepared to resume its position as the leader of the free world. Churchill’s messaging to Hitler was unequivocal, inspirational to his Allies and as a result, he is remembered with admiration by history.
Everyone needs a good nightcap. Ours happens to come in the form of a M-F newsletter that provides the best way to unwind while staying up to speed on national security. (And this Nightcap promises no hangover or weight gain.) Sign up today.
What we see on the battlefield tells us that the Russian president is still willing to expend Russian manpower and capital in the failed invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s objective for the war remains largely unchanged. He wants a “neutral,” subservient Ukraine. Putin’s understanding of Ukraine is ahistorical and unrealistic—unless the U.S. and West allow him to succeed in his ambition. The sooner the Trump team asserts a new reality to Putin, the better.
Clearly, Moscow has not yet received the message. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov recently said about Ukraine, “the political solution we envisage cannot be achieved otherwise than through the full implementation of what was pronounced by President Putin when he spoke to the Russian Foreign Ministry in June.”
In Putin’s June speech, he said Kyiv must renounce all NATO ambitions and withdraw all troops from four Ukrainian regions that Russia has partially occupied and claims it annexed.
Russia loves to negotiate (however much in bad faith) when it believes it has the advantage. Putin will also want an end to Western sanctions and a resumption of the European addiction to Russian hydrocarbons. Allowing this to happen would be a mistake of historic proportions. Europe is on a path toward building alternative sources of energy, rebuilding its defense capabilities, and living up to its NATO commitments. Europe’s current path is a direct consequence of Putin’s strategic mistakes, as are the decisions by Sweden and Finland to join NATO. This momentum toward a modern and less U.S.-centric containment of Putin should be encouraged and reinforced.
Both sides need this war to end. The Ukraine cannot indefinitely sustain the losses of the Russian strategy of attrition. Russia cannot indefinitely continue to be isolated from the world’s economy, endure continued inflation and high interest rates with the loss of foreign investment and energy revenues.
Russia under Putin is working its way back to a third-world economy. The pillars of Putin’s overseas support – Syria and Iran – have experienced regime change or strategic humiliation in recent months. China must be questioning the sensibility of their ‘partnership without limits’ with Russia.
The destruction and loss this war has caused are solely Putin’s responsibility and Russia needs to bear the full price for starting this war. If the Trump team sells Ukraine short by negotiating a deal to get “peace in our time” – as Chamberlain did in Czechoslovakia in 1938 – it will be remembered in equal infamy as Chamberlain and the Munich agreement.
We are rapidly approaching a binary moment in world history: Churchill or Chamberlain? The world is watching.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
