When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Russia

Why Putin Meeting Was The Perfect Case Of Know-Nothing Trump

The declaration that he'd work with the Russian president on a joint cyber security unit shows that the man in the White House has a basic problem of understanding policy. And the consequences are real.

Putin and Trump meet in Hamburg
Putin and Trump meet in Hamburg
 Leonid Bershidsky

One of the many challenges of dealing with Donald Trump is that he sometimes misunderstands things. The fallout from Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin Friday shows just how problematic that can be.

Trump tweeted upon his return from Hamburg that he and Putin "discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded." That sounded alarming. Indeed, most commentators took the tweet to mean that the U.S. president was thinking of forming a joint cyber defense mechanism with a foreign leader accused by U.S. intelligence services of hacking the 2016 presidential election. People were predictably outraged.

A comment under the tweet expressed mock regret that Osama bin Laden was dead and couldn't join forces with Trump in countering terrorism. Senator Marco Rubio offered a similar reaction: "Partnering with Putin on a "Cyber Security Unit" is akin to partnering with Assad on a "Chemical Weapons Unit."

"It's not the dumbest idea I've ever heard, but it's pretty close," Senator Lindsey Graham commented on NBC's "Meet the Press."

But what would an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit" actually do, and was it even a thing? Here's how Putin addressed the subject at the brief press conference he gave after the G-20 summit: "We agreed with the President of the United States that we would set up a working group and will work together on the subject of jointly controlling security in cyberspace, of making sure international legal norms would be unconditionally followed in this area and meddling with the domestic affairs of foreign states wouldn't be permitted."

In the original Russian, this means setting up a group that would work out clear rules of engagement in cyberspace, as well as notions of what would and wouldn't be permissible and a de-escalation mechanism. It's not the smartest idea I've ever heard, but it's pretty close.

They could draw the line at hacking voting systems

Today, Russia and the U.S. are engaged in creeping cyberwarfare against each other, and they may well be working to disable or undermine each other's critical infrastructure. The conflict is potentially deadly and, unlike military interactions between the two adversaries, not subject even to the most rudimentary rules or mutual arrangements. That needs to be fixed, and though a multilateral process under the auspices of the United Nations or perhaps the G-20 would be preferable a bilateral working group would be a start.

I doubt that rules worked out by such a group would put political parties, think tanks and campaigns off limits for hackers. They could, however, clearly draw the line at hacking voting systems, transport networks or energy grids. There might be some clarity as to attribution mechanisms and appropriate responses. Intelligence could be shared if terrorist groups attempted to attack one of the two countries by cyber means.

Trump and Putin don't need to be allies to agree on something like this; as heads of two largely hostile powers, they both have an interest in protecting their country's vital infrastructure, physical and electoral, from hackers. Though voter opinion carries far more weight in the U.S. than in Russia, where opposition parties are kept weak, Putin would no doubt feel the heat if an attack was aimed against him.

It appears that Putin suggested forming the group in the same spirit as Russia and the U.S. have attempted to sort things out in Syria, where there's a danger of direct military clashes. (The only specific result of the 136-minute meeting between Trump and Putin was a ceasefire in southwestern Syria -- a possible precursor to the de-facto partition of Syria into areas controlled by the Assad regime and its U.S. backed opponents.) And while the words "jointly controlling" sound ominous, in Russian, "control" is more oversight than dominance.

Trump, however, appears to have misunderstood the offer. In his mind, the working group turned into a joint "impenetrable unit" to guard against "negative things."

That's perhaps not surprising. Trump is still a political novice, and his mind must have been spinning after hours of discussion on subjects about which he's only recently been learning. Unlike Putin, who prepares meticulously for every public appearance and every round of talks, taking pride in his memory for detail, Trump is unabashedly ad-hoc. Putin noted this trait during the meeting and spoke about it afterwards, masking it as praise: "He analyzes rather quickly, answers the questions that are put to him or to certain new elements that arise during the discussion."

Soon after tweeting about the "impenetrable unit," Trump realized something was wrong with the idea as he'd grasped it. So he tried to walk back the earlier tweet, posting on Sunday: "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't -- but a ceasefire can, & did!"

If some form of cooperation toward rule-making doesn't take place, it will have been an opportunity lost in Trump's poor translation of his own conversation. The implications for further interaction between Putin and Trump are even more troubling.

The lapse in understanding on a serious issue creates potential for frustration, false expectations and shaky deals. Perhaps, when the two meet again, they should have more people in the room who will be able to intervene, provide some background and make sure the presidents are clear on what they're talking about.

*Bershidsky is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Coronavirus

Will China's Zero COVID Ever End?

Too much has been put in to the state-sponsored truth that minimal spread of the virus is the at-all-cost objective. But if the Chinese economy continues to suffer, Xi Jinping may have no choice but to second guess himself.

COVID testing in Guiyang, China

Cfoto/DDP via ZUMA
Deng Yuwen

The tragic bus accident in Guiyang last month — in which 27 people being sent to quarantine were killed — was one of the worst examples of collateral damage since the COVID-19 pandemic began in China nearly three years ago. While the crash can ultimately be traced back to bad government policy, the local authorities did not register it as a Zero COVID related casualty. It was, for them, a simple traffic accident.

The officials in the southern Chinese province of Guizhou, of course, had no alternative. Drawing a link between the deadly crash and the strict policy of Zero COVID, touted by President Xi Jinping, would have revealed the absurdity of the government's choices.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ