Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The mere fact that the leaders of the world’s two largest nuclear powers are engaging in earnest, respectful dialogue to bring the conflict in Ukraine to a peaceful end has to be seen as a good thing.

U.S. President Donald Trump held his second phone call this week with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was a follow-up call to the first one held on February 12.

Lasting nearly two and a half hours (an hour longer than the previous one), it was the longest phone contact between a U.S. president and his Russian counterpart held for many years.

That can be seen as an indictment of the irresponsible lack of diplomacy that has prevailed in Washington.

Both men hailed the dialogue as productive and a sign of their commitment to finding a “lasting peace” in Ukraine. Those words imply acceptance of Russia’s position that a frozen conflict and a mere cessation of hostilities are inadequate and that there will have to be a historic, far-reaching new global security accord.

The Kremlin commented that the presidents had established mutual trust and understanding about moving forward to negotiate an end to the conflict and also to pursue normal bilateral relations between the United States and Russia.

Compared with the void of communication from Washington to Moscow under previous White House administrations, the “return to diplomacy” is a welcome development. As geopolitical analyst Fyodor Lukyanov remarked, President Trump has discarded “ideological baggage” that has thwarted sensible relations with Russia. Not just thwarting sensible relations but indeed provoking dangerous geopolitical tensions to the brink of all-out nuclear war.

While the resumption of civilized dialogue between Washington and Moscow is commendable, there remains a lot of work to do to achieve a lasting peace. Washington has a huge trust deficit, almost as big as its national financial debt.

The practical peace gap was reflected in the differing readouts of the phone call this week. The Russian version was much more detailed than Washington’s, which was vague and scant by comparison.

In addition to Ukraine, both sides concurred on the benefit of U.S. and Russian cooperation for stability in the Middle East and on the non-proliferation of strategic weapons. A notable discrepancy was Trump’s purported insistence that the U.S. and Russia “shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel.”

The Russian readout did not mention Iran or Israel. It seems unlikely, too. It could be that Trump is projecting ulterior motives to confront Tehran, as some observers posited.

In any case, Russia’s main concern, amply stated, was resolving the Ukraine conflict and its long-term security. Putin emphasized again the need to address the “root causes” of the conflict to achieve a comprehensive settlement.

One important difference was that the Russian side categorically stated that there must be a halt to foreign military aid to Ukraine before Moscow could begin substantive peace negotiations. That demand is an essential prerequisite.

The White House readout of the phone call made no mention of stopping the U.S. and NATO supply of weapons to Ukraine or military intelligence.

A troubling anomaly is that Trump flatly denied in subsequent media interviews that the issue of halting military aid to Ukraine was raised by Putin.

American and Russian negotiators are scheduled to meet in Saudi Arabia on March 24 to work on technical details for a possible ceasefire in Ukraine and in the Black Sea. Surely, a top priority that needs to be agreed is for the American side to cede to Russia’s condition of cutting off military aid to Ukraine.

The Russian foreign ministry played down questions about the difference in readouts of the phone call. It was remarked that nuances are to be expected and there was nothing fundamentally contradictory between the two sides’ versions.

Granted, Washington and Moscow seem aligned on the aspiration to find a peaceful solution. Both sides say they are committed to a “lasting peace,” which implies a willingness to address the underlying causes of the conflict in Ukraine, viz., ending NATO expansion, Ukraine’s neutrality, and allaying Russia’s strategic security concerns.

However, there’s a long way to go before that geopolitical destination is reached. The long history of betrayal and bad faith shown by the U.S. and its NATO allies towards Russia will require onerous and verifiable commitments from the West to prove a new era of peace.

Putin also raised the thorny matter of how an initial ceasefire is monitored. Certainly, there can be no European peacekeepers deployed to Ukraine, which would be a backdoor for NATO’s escalation of hostilities. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are cynically pushing the idea of peacekeepers in Ukraine as a way to undermine U.S.-Russia negotiations.

The Russian leader, in a goodwill gesture to Trump, agreed to a partial ceasefire for 30 days, during which Ukrainian energy infrastructure would not be attacked. The Russian forces will continue to advance their ground in Ukraine and destroy the Ukrainian incursion in Russia’s Kursk region.

Since Tuesday’s partial ceasefire announcement, the Kiev regime has launched strikes on Russian energy facilities in Krasnodar and Kursk. Moscow pointed out that it was an attempt to sabotage the preliminary ceasefire deal proposed by Trump. The attacks underscored the problems that Putin mentioned about achieving a comprehensive settlement.

The infractions also prove Moscow’s demands that the Kiev regime must be dismantled for any lasting peace.

The onus is on Trump to put money where his mouth is by immediately halting all military aid – weapons and intel – to Ukraine. Washington started this war by fueling a fanatical coup regime in Kiev back in 2014. While Russia is winning the conflict decisively and will prevail in victory no matter what, the U.S. side must do what it should by stopping the fuel for conflict.

That includes Trump telling European NATO allies to also banish their plans to continue sending weapons to Ukraine and to disabuse their reckless notions about deploying “peacekeeper” troops.

There is a fair chance of a peaceful settlement in Ukraine if Trump and Putin continue their dialogue. But for that outcome, the NeoNazi Kiev regime must be muzzled and eventually liquidated. America’s European lackeys must also be brought to heel and relinquish their Russophobic fantasies.

Conjecturing over differing readouts is a prudent cautionary exercise. In the end, though, the bottom line is all that matters. And Russia has the cards to dictate – with intelligent diplomacy, of course – that the bottom line is for peace.