Seeing that the US interruption in material aid to Kiev lasted only a week, which means in practice there wasn’t an actual interruption at all, a question has been raised whether it was all an act. I don’t think so. I think what we saw was Ukraine that was treated incredibly harshly when it made demands on the United States, but then got full backing when it made demands on Russia.
Ukraine attempted to tie its top priority, namely getting the security guarantee from the US, to what is important to Trump (mineral deal, the Trump process), and all hell broke lose. The US literally demonstratively downgraded its participation in the war. (AKA fed Ukraine somewhat less intelligence.) However when Ukraine limited itself to asking for an advantageous cease-fire from Russia it had the full backing of the US, and Witkoff to take the silly proposal to Moscow.
Symbolically I think what happened there was that Trump took over the formal leadership of the US-Ukrainian war coalition. Since Ukraine can’t sustain its war effort without backing from the Empire it is in the unfortunate position of not being the coalition leader in a war it sacrifices the most to. However, Biden and the Democrats preferred to “lead from behind” and outsource this leadership role to Zelensky, not the least because as a native he was the much better spokesman for their common radical grand strategy. Trump however has demoted the Ukrainian, which took two weeks that were as volatile as they were brief.
Trump being the avatar for US war fatigue and the blow to Ukrainian morale this has caused notwithstanding, I do not think Trump taking such strong ownership of the talks and thus of the war is an unmixed blessing for Russia. If all Trump aimed to do was lessen the fiscal burden of the war on the US he could do so easily, by simply turning his back on the war. Instead he is investing his time and energy in trying to get Russia to shut down its own war.
Think about it, clipping Zelensky’s wings and asserting America’s right to speak for the entire coalition, Ukraine included, is precisely the opposite of walking away and leaving dependant Kiev to fend for itself. It means taking ownership of the situation and outcome, not just for the US, but also for Ukraine.
When at war with a coalition the ideal outcome is imposing a separate peace on the opponents individually. The ideal outcome for Russia in Ukraine is one where it is making such progress that Kiev itself begs for terms whether the US likes that or not, and then Moscow dictates a settlement to Ukraine the US doesn’t get any influence over. Instead Russia finds itself in the dubious position of negotiating the status of its own former historic core lands with a power an ocean away.
Imagine a reality where the US felt Panama was tilting too close to Russia and therefore invaded to carry out a regime change, and instead three years down the line found itself in talks with Russia over Panama’s future. That wouldn’t be exactly cause for fireworks in the USA. In that sense, the Trump process and specifically having to entertain it is no cause for celebration on the Russian side.
In fact, in as much as Trump wants the Russian war effort that Moscow believes (perhaps foolishly) could still work urgently terminated he’s just as much a threat as any sort of salvation.
One comment
You can believe Putin is negotiating only because a) war is expensive b) would like to have trade relations with America. Trump wants a Nobel Prize but Putin needs enough concessions to sell an end to the costly war to the Russian Peoples. I expect Trump to normalize trade and make moves that prove ‘the Empire’ is being dismantled. Putin has publicly acknowledged what Trump is up againt with the Deep State having running the US government since George H W Bush.
By submitting a comment you grant Free West Media a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate and irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin’s discretion. Your email is used for verification purposes only, it will never be shared.