Giving Putin All He Wants
By Mel GurtovMarch 25, 2025Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.
Image by Presidential Press and Information Office (Михаил Метцель, ТАСС), Creative Commons 4.0
One thing seems clear to me about these talks: Vladimir Putin is in an enviable position to get what he wants—maybe not all of what he wants, but most of it. In the two-hour conversation between Putin and Trump, Putin agreed only to a pause on attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure—a promise he violated one hour later. He would not agree to a 30-day cease-fire, which to my mind means the Trump plan has already failed. l
As I believe Putin sees it, the Ukraine army is on the run and Donald Trump wants out. Trump has already made concessions even before his telephone conversation with Putin—agreeing to keep Volodymr Zelensky on the outside looking in, agreeing that Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO, and agreeing that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions. Trump’s team in talks with the Russians is amateurish. People like Steve Witkoff can’t praise Putin enough, believing his every word and assuring one and all that the Russian leader wants peace.
US intelligence is reported to have concluded that Putin aims to have a dominant position vis-à-vis Ukraine once an agreement is reached. He reportedly wants international recognition of Russian-occupied territory and no NATO troops deployed to Ukraine for peacekeeping. Most far-reaching is his demand during his conversation with Trump: termination of all aid to Ukraine, both military and intelligence. Putin, on the other hand, has not been asked to give up anything.
To the contrary, Putin’s agenda is probably very much larger than the above, as Laurie Bristow points out in a recent issue of Foreign Policy. When he says that any agreement must address the “underlying causes” of the war, he means the very existence of Ukraine, which Putin regards as an “anti-Russian project” of the West. He also means that Russia’s security needs go beyond keeping Ukraine out of NATO. Bristow believes it means that “Russia has a veto over other countries’ security arrangements.” And Putin wants to “cut the United States down to size” by decoupling it from Europe.
Does Trump have any leverage over all these Putin’s demands? Sanctions? Sanctions on Russia seem highly unlikely to be used, first, because Trump values Putin’s friendship more than he values Europe’s, and second, because sanctions on Russia would have little impact on its economy. Trump’s threats to use sanctions on Russia to get a deal are, in a word, empty.
Peace Talks with a Limited Future
Beyond the US-Russia negotiations lie two other major issues that are likely to doom them even if Trump and Putin can reach agreement: Ukraine’s likely adverse reaction to a deal, and problems implementing a cease-fire.
Pres. Zelensky has approved the limited cease-fire.
But, quite reasonably, he wants Ukraine to approve every other agreement the US and Russia reach. He certainly is not going to endorse Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian land; nor will he agree to limits on what the Europeans might provide by way of security assistance.
And what about Ukraine’s 20,000 stolen children, and Putin’s war crimes? Zelensky will have to steel himself for the predicted Trump pressure tactics to force his acquiescence. He is very likely to say that no one has the right to sacrifice another country’s sovereignty.
Should a permanent cease-fire be arranged, myriad problems will need attention. Those include international supervision of the cease-fire, agreement of how to handle violations, the locations of a cease-fire along the Russian-Ukraine border, permissible troop and weapon movements, and post-cease-fire arrangements for next steps. Agreement on these matters will be difficult to reach.
Trump’s Strategic Triangle
Trump’s approach to resolving the Ukraine war may have an additional twist that benefits Russia. Recent comments by Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggest that the US wants to strengthen Russia so as to wean it away from China.
It’s a reversal of the Nixon strategy in the 1970s, when (as part of Henry Kissinger’s strategic triangle idea) US policy was to engage with China in order to weaken the Soviet Union. Rubio said:
“I don’t know if we’ll ever be successful completely at peeling them [the Russians] off of a relationship with the Chinese. I also don’t think having China and Russia at each other’s neck is good for global stability because they’re both nuclear powers, but I do think we’re in a situation now where the Russians have become increasingly dependent on the Chinese and that’s not a good outcome either if you think about it.”
If reducing Russian dependence on China is indeed the US strategy, it further helps explain why Trump has asked nothing of Putin and everything of Ukraine. What better incentives for Putin to move away from China than delivering Ukraine and Europe to him?
Thus does Trump become an easy mark for Putin—his best hope for ensuring that Russia will have predominant influence in Europe—not mainly through military moves, though the threat is there all along Russia’s borderland, but in political influence over far-right parties.
Yet the strategy has numerous holes in it. The Russia-China strategic partnership is tighter than ever, and strongly focused on creating a new world order that can compete with the US bloc. China has far more material benefits to offer Russia than does Trump.
Playing the Russia card, moreover, could easily backfire: Russia takes its gains in Europe without shedding its close ties with Beijing, leaving Trump with nothing to show for having sacrificed an independent country to a very ambitious dictator.
Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at In the Human Interest.
By Mel Gurtov
Image by Presidential Press and Information Office (Михаил Метцель, ТАСС), Creative Commons 4.0
One thing seems clear to me about these talks: Vladimir Putin is in an enviable position to get what he wants—maybe not all of what he wants, but most of it. In the two-hour conversation between Putin and Trump, Putin agreed only to a pause on attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure—a promise he violated one hour later. He would not agree to a 30-day cease-fire, which to my mind means the Trump plan has already failed. l
As I believe Putin sees it, the Ukraine army is on the run and Donald Trump wants out. Trump has already made concessions even before his telephone conversation with Putin—agreeing to keep Volodymr Zelensky on the outside looking in, agreeing that Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO, and agreeing that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions. Trump’s team in talks with the Russians is amateurish. People like Steve Witkoff can’t praise Putin enough, believing his every word and assuring one and all that the Russian leader wants peace.
US intelligence is reported to have concluded that Putin aims to have a dominant position vis-à-vis Ukraine once an agreement is reached. He reportedly wants international recognition of Russian-occupied territory and no NATO troops deployed to Ukraine for peacekeeping. Most far-reaching is his demand during his conversation with Trump: termination of all aid to Ukraine, both military and intelligence. Putin, on the other hand, has not been asked to give up anything.
To the contrary, Putin’s agenda is probably very much larger than the above, as Laurie Bristow points out in a recent issue of Foreign Policy. When he says that any agreement must address the “underlying causes” of the war, he means the very existence of Ukraine, which Putin regards as an “anti-Russian project” of the West. He also means that Russia’s security needs go beyond keeping Ukraine out of NATO. Bristow believes it means that “Russia has a veto over other countries’ security arrangements.” And Putin wants to “cut the United States down to size” by decoupling it from Europe.
Does Trump have any leverage over all these Putin’s demands? Sanctions? Sanctions on Russia seem highly unlikely to be used, first, because Trump values Putin’s friendship more than he values Europe’s, and second, because sanctions on Russia would have little impact on its economy. Trump’s threats to use sanctions on Russia to get a deal are, in a word, empty.
Peace Talks with a Limited Future
Beyond the US-Russia negotiations lie two other major issues that are likely to doom them even if Trump and Putin can reach agreement: Ukraine’s likely adverse reaction to a deal, and problems implementing a cease-fire.
Pres. Zelensky has approved the limited cease-fire.
But, quite reasonably, he wants Ukraine to approve every other agreement the US and Russia reach. He certainly is not going to endorse Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian land; nor will he agree to limits on what the Europeans might provide by way of security assistance.
And what about Ukraine’s 20,000 stolen children, and Putin’s war crimes? Zelensky will have to steel himself for the predicted Trump pressure tactics to force his acquiescence. He is very likely to say that no one has the right to sacrifice another country’s sovereignty.
Should a permanent cease-fire be arranged, myriad problems will need attention. Those include international supervision of the cease-fire, agreement of how to handle violations, the locations of a cease-fire along the Russian-Ukraine border, permissible troop and weapon movements, and post-cease-fire arrangements for next steps. Agreement on these matters will be difficult to reach.
Trump’s Strategic Triangle
Trump’s approach to resolving the Ukraine war may have an additional twist that benefits Russia. Recent comments by Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggest that the US wants to strengthen Russia so as to wean it away from China.
It’s a reversal of the Nixon strategy in the 1970s, when (as part of Henry Kissinger’s strategic triangle idea) US policy was to engage with China in order to weaken the Soviet Union. Rubio said:
“I don’t know if we’ll ever be successful completely at peeling them [the Russians] off of a relationship with the Chinese. I also don’t think having China and Russia at each other’s neck is good for global stability because they’re both nuclear powers, but I do think we’re in a situation now where the Russians have become increasingly dependent on the Chinese and that’s not a good outcome either if you think about it.”
If reducing Russian dependence on China is indeed the US strategy, it further helps explain why Trump has asked nothing of Putin and everything of Ukraine. What better incentives for Putin to move away from China than delivering Ukraine and Europe to him?
Thus does Trump become an easy mark for Putin—his best hope for ensuring that Russia will have predominant influence in Europe—not mainly through military moves, though the threat is there all along Russia’s borderland, but in political influence over far-right parties.
Yet the strategy has numerous holes in it. The Russia-China strategic partnership is tighter than ever, and strongly focused on creating a new world order that can compete with the US bloc. China has far more material benefits to offer Russia than does Trump.
Playing the Russia card, moreover, could easily backfire: Russia takes its gains in Europe without shedding its close ties with Beijing, leaving Trump with nothing to show for having sacrificed an independent country to a very ambitious dictator.
Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at In the Human Interest.
UK
MPs and campaigners demand a free and united Ukraine and an end to Russian occupation
An international coalition of MPs, trade unionists and campaigners have demanded that peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine bring an end to Russian occupation, justice for war crimes and the return of abducted Ukrainian children.
Former shadow chancellor and Labour MP John McDonnell, Labour MP for Norwich South Clive Lewis and Labour MP for Nottingham East Nadia Whittome are among the signatories of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign’s statement, which warns against appeasing Putin and surrendering Ukrainian territory to Russian occupation.
They are joined by representatives from the National Union of Mineworkers, the train drivers union ASLEF and the PCSU, as well as human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and US-Ukrainian senator Tanya Vyhovsky, as well as a number of Ukrainian trade unionists and labour rights activists.
The statement comes as Trump sidelines Ukraine in peace negotiations while repeating Russian propaganda, such as false claims that the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station is on the Russian-Ukraine border. Trump’s favourable approach to Putin, combined with false statements that Ukraine bears responsibility for Russia’s full-scale invasion, raises concerns that any peace deal will favour Russian aggression and punish Ukraine.
People living in Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine endure torture, homelessness, sexual violence, summary executions and daily oppression. Prisoners in the occupied regions are held in terrifying conditions, malnourished and beaten. And the ongoing horror of child abductions with the intent of Russifying Ukrainian children is a form of genocidal violence.
The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign is therefore demanding that any peace negotiations end Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, with justice for war crimes committed by Russian forces, and the return of Ukrainian children to their homes and families.
The statement also makes clear that Ukraine must be given the aid it needs to win this war, with frozen Russian assets in Europe released to help fund military aid and a fair, just reconstruction. Signatories recommend a Save Ukraine summit that brings European and other leaders together to plan for a sustainable and fair peace, while rejecting Trump’s coercive approach that seeks to extract Ukraine’s mineral wealth in exchange for support.
“If Britain is to maintain credibility in its steadfast support for Ukraine, it cannot afford strategic ambiguity,” said Clive Lewis MP. “It must anchor itself firmly within a European security architecture. Any lingering fantasy of an unbreakable ‘special relationship’ with the US must confront the cold truth: America, under Trump’s isolationist spell, is more unreliable than ever.”
Here is the full statement:
A FREE AND UNITED UKRAINE: AN ALTERNATIVE TO RUSSIAN OCCUPATION
The UK government, the labour and trade union movement, and wider civil society, must oppose the imposition of an unjust peace that cements Russia’s occupation of Ukraine.
Ukraine’s natural resources must not be exploited for the benefit of Western corporations and oligarchs. Instead, deals must serve the interests of Ukrainian people and protect the environment under democratic oversight.
A just and lasting peace must align with the Ukrainian people’s right to a free, democratic and united Ukraine.
Key Points:
1. Aid to Ukraine: Increase aid with critical weapons to restore frontline confidence, strengthening military capabilities, and rejecting any loss of sovereignty.
2. Economic Measures: Transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, cancel Ukraine’s international debt, and implement stronger sanctions against Putin’s regime and the oligarchs who support it.
3. International Support: Convene an emergency “Save Ukraine” summit of European and allied nations for necessary military and financial support, ensuring Ukraine can negotiate freely without coercion.
4. Justice for War Crimes: Establish international mechanisms for justice and accountability for Russia’s war crimes and the crime of aggression. The abducted Ukrainian children must be returned, and the perpetrators brought to justice.
5. Reconstruction of Ukraine: Support a progressive, socially just reconstruction with democratic participation that empowers Ukrainian trade unions and civil society. Withdraw the proposed Labour Code that restricts workers’ rights and unions.
6. Opposition to Trumpist Reaction: Recognise Trump’s alignment with Putin and his coercion of Ukraine, posing a threat to global democracy. The government should rescind its offer of a state visit and rally Europe to act independently.
7. Reverse Foreign Aid Cuts: Finance Ukraine’s defence by seizing Russian assets, imposing taxes on billionaires and corporations, and relaxing fiscal regulations. Cutting foreign aid is counterproductive and weakens support for Ukraine.
Signed:
John McDonnell, Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington
Clive Lewis, Labour MP for Norwich South
Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East
Chris Kitchen, General Secretary, National Union of Mineworkers
Mick Whelan, General Secretary, ASLEF
John Moloney, Asst General Secretary Public and Commercial Service Union (personal capacity)
Mick Antoniw, Welsh Senedd Member for Pontypridd
Tanya Vyhovsky, Progressive/Democrat Senator, Vermont, USA
Olena Ivashchenko, Director of Campaign for Ukraine
Christopher Ford, Ukraine Solidarity Campaign
Mariia Pastukh, Vsesvit Ukraine Solidarity Collective
Vasyl Andreyev, President of the Construction and Building Materials Workers Union of Ukraine,
Yury Levchenko, Chairman People Power, Ukrainian labour party
Oksana Holota, KVPU, Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine (pc)
Daryna Korostii, President of Ukrainian Student Society (UL)
Pavlo Holota, NGPU, Independent Trade Union of Mineworkers of Ukraine (pc)
Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Campaigner
Mark Serwotka, General Secretary, PCSU (2005-2024).
Meeting tonight:
On 24th March Ian Lavery MP is hosting a special meeting in Parliament on behalf of Ukraine Solidarity Campaign, with two left-wing political leaders of Ukrainian heritage from the US and UK, both speaking in person:
• Tanya Vyhovsky is a State Senator in Vermont. She is a member of the Vermont Progressive Party, and works with Bernie Sanders (who lives in her district!)
• Mick Antoniw is a member of the Welsh Senedd and was Counsel General for Wales 2021-24. He is a member of Ukraine Solidarity Campaign’s steering committee.
Alongside the discussion, we will be launching the above charter of demands for stronger UK and international solidarity with Ukraine and with its workers’ movement. Please join us for this important event. Register here: http://bit.ly/tanyavmeeting.
Please note that this event is only for those who have registered. It is a free event, but please consider buying a paid ticket. Funds will go to our new appeal in support of the “Step To Victory” Humanitarian Headquarters social centre in Pershotravensk / Shakhtarske, in the Dnipropetrovsk region.
No comments:
Post a Comment