Thanks but no, Kiev: Russia and the US can reconcile without Ukraine

Steve Witkoff’s Moscow visit seems to show that a detente the two nations is possible even if Zelensky is not part of the equation

Russian President Vladimir Putin has met again with Steve Witkoff, special envoy of US President Donald Trump. From the little the cameras showed us of the meeting it appears that the atmosphere was unusually friendly. The discussion was also long, lasting for about three hours.

Yet, at this point, we know little about its content or, more importantly, what progress has been made or not. We do know, from Russia’s Yuri Ushakov, special aide to Putin, that the meeting was, in his words, “constructive” and “useful.” In particular, it has produced closer proximity between the Russian and US positions, not only on Ukraine but also on other issues that have – mostly – not been further specified. With the important exception of the possibility of facilitating direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian representatives.

Clearly, it is too early to draw strong conclusions about the meeting and its results. One thing that seems certain is that it was not a failure. Even if Ushakov’s language was restrained, it did signal that much. Beyond that, however, we can only speculate: One thing we know from the meeting’s context is that Trump has, once again, publicly displayed great dissatisfaction and impatience with Kiev and personally with Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky. This time, using his own social media site Truth Social, Trump focused on Zelensky’s refusal to accept the loss of Crimea. More broadly, he reminded Zelensky that he has little leverage (“no cards”) and that his stalling delays ending the war.

This intervention is in line with what Trump’s critics furiously decry as a pattern of being soft on Russia and hard on Ukraine. In principle, while exaggerating a little, the critics have a point. Trump has effectively reversed the former US approach, which consisted of pampering Ukraine and always blaming Russia. But what Trump’s critics here fail to realize is that, on this issue, he is right. He cannot quite say it, but Russia is winning the war against both Ukraine and, in effect, the West. In this situation, a US president has two options: escalate further, most likely to, at least, a very large regional war in Europe and parts of Asia or finally speak to Russia in terms that Moscow can find acceptable. That is precisely what Trump has decided to do, at least for now. And anyone who wishes to avoid escalation has to agree with him, if not in detail, then fundamentally.

Read more

The latest round of talks between the Russian leadership and Witkoff confirm that Washington is staying the course outlined above. More broadly again, it also means that the US is not abandoning the style of its latest peace proposal for the Ukraine War. The latter is reported to offer a freezing of current lines on the ground, the long overdue to Ukraine’s NATO perspective (which, if it had come in late 2021 could have prevented the war’s large-scale escalation), sanctions lifting, as well as recognizing Crimea as Russian.

These terms do not, actually, coincide with all of Russia’s demands. But they try to meet Russian concerns as never before. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has pointed out, Trump is unique among Western leaders in acknowledging the root causes of the war. In that sense, the US peace proposals show not only that Washington is now realistic about the situation on the ground (heavily in Russia’s favor), but also that Trump’s administration is principally ready to shape its concrete policy according to the insight referred to by Lavrov.

That leaves, as far as the Ukraine War is concerned, two key questions: Will Trump follow through by withholding further military deliveries and crucial intelligence support to Kiev, and if so, when? Second, what are the NATO-EU Europeans going to do – or not do? While they still seem to be sticking to their rhetoric of blocking a path to peace, there are also signs that their misguided and harmful (for Ukraine most of all) resolve is crumbling: Britain is preparing the ground for explicitly giving up on silly schemes of sending troops to Ukraine, Polish President Andrzej Duda has recognized the fact that Ukraine has to make concessions to Russia, former NATO general secretary and uber-hawk Jens Stoltenberg has said the same, and current NATO figurehead Mark Rutte is demonstratively praising Trump for “breaking the deadlock.”

Read more

European hardliners are by no means ready to give up yet. Both Poland’s Radek “Thank you, USA!” Sikorski and France’s Emmanuel “I love my scent” Macron have produced hysterics of frustrated denial. Whichever way NATO-EU Europe ends up going, it is certain already that it is fracturing.

The above is the immediate backdrop of the latest meeting between Putin and Witkoff. The one thing we can take away from that meeting even now is that none of it has damaged the ongoing search for a fundamental normalization of the relationship between Moscow and Washington, which is good news for the world, whether European bellicists like it or not.

But it is more difficult not only to say anything about details, but also about one key question: Will this détente between Russia and the US proceed by including a settlement for Ukraine or will the two tracks diverge? It is possible for Washington and Moscow to keep working on normalization between them, while dropping the issue of Ukraine. That is the real meaning of Trump’s reminder to Zelensky that the US can recognize Crimea as Russian whatever Kiev chooses to do. Yet, of course, if Washington would really choose to be “done” with Ukraine, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio has put it, Russia would not. Kiev should be very careful what it wishes for.