The Putin-Trump call was a resounding success – …

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.

Read more

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.

Read more

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.