The Putin-Trump call was a resounding success – whatever was said
Imagine the Russian and American leaders having a productive 2.5-hour-long conversation just two months ago

The presidents of Russia and the US, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, have had a long telephone call. Yet the sky has not fallen and the Earth is not shaking. In other words, at least as far as we know now, those expecting instant sensations must have been disappointed.

No, Odessa has not been handed over to Russia; no, Moscow has not suddenly agreed to abandon its main war aims, such as making and keeping Ukraine neutral again; and no, the call did not produce a finished map of territorial adjustments. But then, to be frank, those expecting such sensations only have themselves to blame.

For they have missed the bigger picture: As so often, the sensation is hidden in plain sight. It is that these talks have taken place and have clearly not failed but succeeded. Clocking in at almost two-and-a-half hours – the longest telephone conversation between leaders in recent Russian-American history, as Russian commentators immediately stressed – the talk was wide-ranging. And it will be remembered as another milestone in the developing new détente between Moscow and Washington.

For those whose baselines have shifted due to rapid recent developments, please recall: Less than half a year ago, before Donald Trump’s re-election to the American presidency, what has just happened would have been considered impossible. Less than two months ago, before Trump’s second inauguration, many observers would still have qualified it as very unlikely. And even between that inauguration and now – notwithstanding the first phone call between Trump and Putin in February – many skeptics were still, understandably, cautious or even pessimistic: The inertia of American deep-state interest and Russophobia, they felt, would never allow this kind of radical rapprochement.

Now, however, it is time to recognize that this, as the Americans say, is happening. The discussion has to move on from “could this possibly be real” to “it’s real and what are the consequences?”

We know far too little at this point to come to robust conclusions. But two important points are clear enough already: The US and Russia will keep these negotiations between themselves, at least in substance: Russian evening news has reported that Moscow has agreed to continue and extend the bilateral process. “Bilateral” is, of course, the word that matters: As predicted by some, the times of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” – always a hypocritical and silly slogan – are over, forever. And NATO-EU Europe remains locked out, too. That’s good news.

The second take-away point we can already register is that Moscow is not making substantial concessions. It is true that, in what was clearly a gesture of good will, Putin did agree to mutually – with Ukraine – suspend attacks on energy infrastructure for 30 days. He also welcomed working out the details of an agreement regarding Black Sea maritime traffic. A prisoner exchange and the unilateral transfer of several dozen severely injured Ukrainian POWs currently being treated in Russian hospitals pointed in the same direction.

But that was it regarding Mr. Nice: Confirming Russia’s readiness to take part in working out “complex”and “long-term” solutions, Putin, of course, made it clear – once more – that Moscow is not interested in anything less, especially not in any form of truce that would serve only as a stalling device for Ukraine and its remaining Western backers.

Likewise, the Russian president re-iterated that the root causes of the conflict will have to be addressed. These include, as should be well-known by now, NATO’s attempt to acquire Ukraine as well as the generally aggressive eastward expansion of the alliance since the end of the Cold War. But those in the West who have a habit of not listening when Moscow speaks, should recall that, from its perspective, the nature of Ukraine’s regime, its treatment of minorities (including religious suppression), and the militarization of Ukraine also belong to these root causes.

Hence, there will only be disappointment for those in NATO-EU Europe who now want to believe that Ukraine may lose territory but can then be turned into what Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen unflatteringly calls a “steel porcupine” (or “stählernes Stachelschwein” in her native German). That will not fly. Russia has fought this war to eliminate a military threat on its western border. If the EU-NATO Europeans should really go ahead with an attempt to replace US support for Ukraine, the war will continue. But without the US and, probably, even against the backdrop of a flourishing Russian-American détente. Good luck with that one.

Unsurprisingly, further remarks by Putin in the conversation with Trump, as reported by Russian evening news, confirm these hard limits to Moscow’s “give.” The Russian president explained that a general 30-day ceasefire, as suggested by Washington, is conditional on several “essential” points: effective supervision along the whole frontline and a stop to re-arming the Ukrainian military, including, obviously, from outside the country, as well as to forced mobilization inside Ukraine.

Indeed, “emphasis was put” on the fact that a “key” condition for both avoiding further escalation – note that Russia emphatically does not exclude that option – and for finding a diplomatic solution, is a “complete” end of foreign supplies of military hardware and intelligence for Kiev.

Kiev’s unreliability in negotiations was mentioned and so were war crimes committed by its forces. Even another conciliatory message had its flip side: Russia, Putin explained, is prepared to apply “humanitarian” considerations regarding Ukrainian troops now encircled in its Kursk region. When, that is, they surrender into captivity. That is basic international standard, of course, and only to be expected. But those asking, in effect, for the special privilege of just letting these units escape to fight another day, have been told once again that there won’t be any freebies anymore. Kiev has by now admitted that it mis-used the Istanbul negotiations of spring 2022 in bad faith to gain military advantages. Moscow is clearly determined to not let anything comparable happen again.

Ultimately, this conversation belongs in two main contexts, both historic: the ending of the Ukraine War, which may or may not work out. What Russia has made clear is that it will end only on its terms, which is what powers which win wars usually do. And the US has de facto accepted this outcome. Because – historic context number two – the new American leadership is putting a general policy of normalization and, in effect, détente and cooperation with Russia above the West’s proxy war in Ukraine. And so it should.
https://www.rt.com/news/614446-trump-putin-phone-call/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Putin and Trump usher in an era of new diplomacy
The US president sees Ukraine as a failing asset, not an ally

Just two months ago, the idea of serious negotiations between Russia and the United States over Ukraine – let alone a broader normalization of relations – seemed like utopia. Yet today, what once appeared impossible is happening. It proves that, with realism and a genuine will to achieve results, much can be accomplished. However, two extremes must be avoided: one is the illusion that everything will be resolved quickly and painlessly, and the other is the cynical belief that any agreement is fundamentally unattainable.

It is the White House that is driving this political and diplomatic effort. Russia, as it has reiterated many times, is responding to goodwill with a readiness for meaningful dialogue. Meanwhile, Western Europe is playing the role of the perennial spoiler – grumbling and obstructing – but lacking the military and political weight to stop or reverse the process. As for Ukraine, it resists, knowing its survival depends on American support. Despite its reluctance, Kiev is being told behind the scenes by its European backers that following Washington’s lead is inevitable.

The key to understanding Washington’s approach came in Donald Trump’s now-infamous conversation with Vladimir Zelensky. When asked whether America was “on Ukraine’s side,” Trump responded that the US was not on anyone’s side – it simply wanted to end the war and achieve peace. This was a revolutionary statement. Until now, no Western politician could answer such a question without reflexively declaring full support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia. But by positioning the US as a mediator rather than a partisan backer, Trump has completely shifted the tone of American engagement.

Trump’s view of mediation is clear: pressure both sides into agreeing to a ceasefire, and then leave them to negotiate their future coexistence – perhaps without further American involvement. In reality, the latter part of the process does not interest Trump much, if at all. His camp sees the war as an unnecessary drain on US resources, a burden America doesn’t need. Their priority is to extricate the US, not to secure ideological victories or long-term commitments.

This explains why Trump is applying much harsher pressure on Ukraine than on Russia. In his eyes, Ukraine is a troubled asset with bad management at the helm – one that is bleeding American money and needs restructuring. From the standpoint of a businessman, the “major shareholder” (Washington) is demanding damage control and cost-cutting from the “management” (Zelensky and his administration). Ukraine’s leaders are being forced to make concessions where possible, but their ability to maneuver is limited.

The pressure on Russia is of a different nature. Unlike Ukraine, Russia is not dependent on the US and remains a major power with its own interests. Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy defined great power rivalry as the defining feature of modern geopolitics, and this still holds true. Moreover, Trump has long feared nuclear war – something he has spoken about publicly for decades, even before he entered politics. He blames Joe Biden for bringing the world to the brink of nuclear escalation without a clear objective. This concern acts as a moderating force in Trump’s approach to Russia. While he may exert pressure, he will avoid steps that could provoke further escalation.

At the same time, Trump’s remark about being “on no one’s side” applies to Russia as well. He is uninterested in the historical or cultural complexities of the Ukraine conflict. However, credit must be given where it is due: Trump has shown a willingness to abandon the rigid dogmas that have shaped Western policy toward Russia for years. He has taken decisive steps toward understanding Moscow’s position in a way that previous US leaders refused to do.

Trump’s negotiating style is built on pressure and brinkmanship, but ultimately, he believes a deal requires concessions from both sides. This is a businessman’s approach: force the other party to the table, hold a tough line, but ultimately hammer out an agreement that serves mutual interests.

What distinguishes Trump from his predecessors is that he is not seeking global hegemony based on ideology. Unlike the liberal interventionists who preceded him, Trump has little interest in abstract ideas. He views American dominance in the world not as a matter of spreading democracy or human rights, but as the ability to secure concrete gains – especially economic ones. His approach, inherited from the business world, is pragmatic: regulatory constraints are obstacles to be bypassed rather than guiding principles. This flexibility, especially in international law and foreign policy, provides room to maneuver and opens paths that previously seemed blocked. In the context of Ukraine, it is an asset – dogmatic thinking has only led to stalemate.

However, Trump sees negotiations as a process of mutual compromise. If he believes Ukraine must make concessions, he also believes Russia must do the same. From his perspective, any deal must be reciprocal; otherwise, it is unfair. This presents both challenges and opportunities for Moscow.

Above all, the most important development is that real diplomacy has returned. Behind closed doors, intensive negotiations are unfolding – complex, high-stakes discussions with no predetermined outcomes. For years, diplomacy in the Western world had degenerated into a one-sided lecture: the US and its allies dictated terms, and the only question was how quickly the other side would comply. Now, that era is over. The art of real diplomacy – balancing power, recognizing mutual interests, and engaging in direct, substantive talks – is making a comeback.

For the first time in decades, Washington and Moscow are engaging as equals, navigating the complexities of power politics without the ideological baggage of the past. And that, more than anything, is what makes this moment so significant. For the first time in years, there is a real chance of finding a resolution – because finally, there are real negotiations.

https://www.rt.com/russia/614445-putin-and-trump-new-era/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.