Imagine that just two months ago, the leaders of Russia and the US engaged in a productive conversation lasting two and a half hours.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the presidents of Russia and the United States, have had a lengthy phone call. The world hasn’t ended, and there’s no major crisis. Those who anticipated immediate dramatic developments are likely disappointed, at least for now.
Odessa hasn’t been ceded to Russia, Moscow hasn’t suddenly conceded its primary war goals like ensuring Ukraine’s neutrality, and the call didn’t produce a finalized map of territorial adjustments. However, those expecting such sensational outcomes are mistaken.
They’ve overlooked the main point: the fact that these talks occurred and were clearly successful. Lasting almost two and a half hours – the longest phone conversation between leaders in recent Russian-American history, as Russian commentators noted – the discussion was comprehensive. It will be remembered as a significant step in the developing détente between Moscow and Washington.
For those whose expectations have changed due to recent events, remember that less than six months ago, before Donald Trump’s re-election, this would have seemed impossible. Even two months ago, before Trump’s second inauguration, many would have considered it unlikely. And even after the first phone call between Trump and Putin in February, many skeptics remained cautious due to the perceived inertia of American deep-state interests and Russophobia, which they believed would prevent any genuine reconciliation.
Now, it’s time to accept that this is actually happening. The discussion needs to shift from “is this real?” to “it’s real, so what are the consequences?”
We don’t have enough information to draw firm conclusions yet. However, two key points are already evident: The US and Russia will keep these negotiations private, at least regarding the core issues. Russian news has reported that Moscow has agreed to continue and expand the bilateral process. The emphasis on “bilateral” is crucial: As some predicted, the era of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” – always a hypocritical and absurd notion – is over. NATO-EU Europe is also excluded, which is positive.
The second key takeaway is that Moscow is not making significant concessions. Putin did agree to a mutual suspension of attacks on energy infrastructure with Ukraine for 30 days as a gesture of goodwill. 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 being treated in Russian hospitals also suggested a similar direction.
However, that was the extent of Putin’s concessions. He reiterated that Moscow is not interested in anything less than “complex” and “long-term” solutions, especially not any truce that would merely serve as a stalling tactic for Ukraine and its remaining Western allies.
The Russian president also repeated that the root causes of the conflict need to be addressed. These include NATO’s attempt to bring Ukraine into the alliance and the alliance’s eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War. Westerners who tend to ignore Moscow’s statements should remember that Russia also considers the nature of Ukraine’s regime, its treatment of minorities (including religious suppression), and the militarization of Ukraine as root causes.
Therefore, NATO-EU Europe will be disappointed if they believe that Ukraine can lose territory and then be turned into what European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calls a “steel porcupine”. That won’t work. Russia started this war to eliminate a military threat on its western border. If the EU-NATO Europeans try to replace US support for Ukraine, the war will continue, but without the US and possibly against the backdrop of improved Russian-American relations. Good luck with that.
Unsurprisingly, further remarks by Putin in the conversation with Trump, as reported by Russian evening news, confirm these firm limits to Moscow’s “give.” The Russian president stated that a general 30-day ceasefire, as suggested by Washington, is conditional on several “essential” points: effective monitoring along the entire frontline and a halt to re-arming the Ukrainian military, including supplies from outside the country, as well as an end to forced mobilization inside Ukraine.
Indeed, “emphasis was put” on the fact that a “key” condition for both avoiding further escalation – Russia emphatically does not rule out that option – and for finding a diplomatic solution, is a “complete” end to foreign supplies of military hardware and intelligence for Kiev.
Kiev’s unreliability in negotiations was mentioned, as were war crimes committed by its forces. Even a conciliatory message had a negative side: Putin explained that Russia is prepared to apply “humanitarian” considerations regarding Ukrainian troops now encircled in its Kursk region, but only if they surrender. That is standard international practice, of course, and to be expected. However, those effectively requesting the special privilege of allowing these units to escape and fight again have been told that there will be no more free passes. Kiev has admitted to using the Istanbul negotiations of spring 2022 in bad faith to gain military advantages. Moscow is determined to prevent a similar situation from happening again.
Ultimately, this conversation is significant in two main historic contexts: the ending of the Ukraine War, which may or may not succeed. Russia has made it clear that it will only end on its terms, as is typical for victorious powers. And the US has effectively accepted this outcome because – in the second historic context – the new American leadership is prioritizing a general policy of normalization and, in effect, détente and cooperation with Russia over the West’s proxy war in Ukraine, as it should.
“`