Trump’s diplomatic efforts are generating significant momentum in the Ukraine conflict; however, Moscow remains adept at its strategic manoeuvres. What are the ambitions of the Russian president?
Progress is being made in the attempts to address the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Nevertheless, the discussions are unfolding in unforeseen venues and with novel configurations. Rather than facilitating direct dialogue between Kyiv and Moscow, an initial accord has been established between Ukraine and the United States.
In Jeddah, an accord was reached between both parties regarding the framework of a ceasefire proposal directed at Moscow, while also addressing their disputes concerning a raw materials agreement. In a calculated move, Washington has reinstated its temporarily halted military assistance to Kyiv, highlighting the latter’s critical reliance on the United States. The European allies struggled significantly to address the ensuing void.
This positions Donald Trump as a co-author of a Russian narrative that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty. Marco Rubio even refers to a proxy war—Kyiv as an American surrogate. From 2014 to 2022, the Kremlin had its sights set on Washington, Paris, and Berlin, anticipating that these capitals would pressure Kyiv into making concessions.
Has Russia finally achieved its objectives? At present, there is a lack of awareness among the populace in Moscow. The Kremlin’s initial response was notably measured. Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for the Russian president, remarked on Wednesday afternoon that Russia would meticulously assess the conditions of the proposal. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz subsequently engaged in a telephone conversation with Russian presidential assistant Yuri Ushakov, having previously established a personal rapport in Riyadh on February 18.
On Thursday, the aircraft belonging to American real estate mogul and US special envoy Steve Vitkoff touched down in Moscow. In mid-February, Vitkoff became the first senior official from the Trump administration to unexpectedly collect US citizen Mark Vogel, who was incarcerated in Russia, and transport him out as a preliminary gesture of goodwill. Vitkoff engaged in a conversation with Putin on Thursday evening, and it is anticipated that a telephone dialogue between Putin and Trump may ensue shortly thereafter.
Putin’s initial response effectively indicated a willingness to engage in dialogue; during a press conference ahead of his meeting with Witkoff, the Russian leader characterised the notion of a 30-day ceasefire as practical. Nevertheless, he promptly posed a number of counter-questions that he wished to address directly “with the American side,” specifically with Donald Trump: The pivotal inquiry, he remarked, revolved around the purpose of the forthcoming 30 days—specifically, whether Ukraine would persist with its mobilisation efforts during this period.
Had this not occurred, Putin raised the issue of who would oversee adherence to the agreement and whether the Ukrainian soldiers still at Kursk would merely capitulate; after all, they could not be permitted to “simply walk away.” The ball was now firmly in Putin’s court.
The tempo is brisk, and the American pronouncements regarding the advent of a new era of peace come across as rather grandiose. Trump’s knack for deal-making is certainly striking a chord in Russia: At last, it seems that the prevailing sentiment in Moscow suggests that the West is setting aside its moral posturing and focussing on pragmatic matters. Few nations have seen their elite so adeptly blend the mechanisms of capitalism with those of repression as has been the case in Russia. The core of the Russian oligarchy has evolved beyond merely the takeover of state institutions by wealthy capitalists; it now encompasses the distortion of both domestic and foreign policy into pragmatic, frequently cynical business dealings.
This facilitates a significant level of stylistic and rhetorical alignment with the concept of a turbo-neoliberal America, overseen by tech enthusiasts keen on rapid, tangible financial and media successes. However, given the marked shift in Washington’s approach, the Kremlin finds itself pondering a question that is equally urgent for Europeans: Is Trump remaining true to his commitments? Or could it merely be a cunning ruse?
The scepticism is unmistakable. War commentators and nationalist leaders are in a frenzy, asserting that the ceasefire is a geopolitical ruse—crafted to provide Kyiv with a tactical edge. Putin ought to avoid repeating the errors he committed with earlier concessions to the West regarding Ukraine or to Ankara concerning Syria. The objective is to undermine Ukraine’s military capabilities to the greatest extent feasible.
Indeed, the dynamics on the battlefield currently favour Moscow—disrupting them with uncertain negotiation outcomes might later be deemed a miscalculation. A one-month ceasefire could strategically disadvantage Russia, while simultaneously providing Kyiv and its European allies with crucial time to reorganise their positions.
The Russian leadership finds itself in a quandary, uncertain if it is confronted with a fleeting and singular opportunity that may soon vanish, or if engaging in meaningful negotiations would entail relinquishing its paramount advantage over Ukraine – the capacity for continued attrition.
This three-stage model elucidates the various intertwined objectives that the Russian Federation is concurrently pursuing in its aggressive actions.
To begin with, we have Ukraine. Moscow has consistently aimed for a sustainable erosion of its neighbor’s sovereignty – initially employing more economical tactics like energy-policy coercion, corruption infiltration, propaganda, meddling in domestic affairs, and fostering social discord; later, faced with limited success, it resorted to paramilitary destabilisation and ultimately, a full-scale invasion.
A tumultuous shift in governance may be regarded as a significant milestone, yet it should not be viewed as a conclusion in itself, particularly if the desired outcome can be attained through alternative means—be it via internal political mechanisms within Ukraine or through external influences. What remains unequivocally paramount, however, is the obliteration and enduring diminishment of Ukraine’s military prowess.
While certain factions within the Russian leadership may believe that Kyiv can be compelled into a negotiated settlement, and as the Russian economy and society seem increasingly eager for the conflict to conclude, one fact remains indisputable: Despite the annexations, Ukraine possesses the size and strength to emerge as a significant security challenge for Russia in the coming years, both independently and with potential support from Europe. In a post-war Ukraine, one can expect the presence of trained border crossers, extensive drone fleets, a significant quantity of weapons and ammunition in circulation, as well as experience with attacks and infrastructural sabotage.
Next, we turn our attention to Europe. The Kremlin is pursuing a re-evaluation of the established rules governing the continent. Buffer zones in relation to NATO are set to be established, the principle of non-alignment is to be discarded, the EU will be permitted to concentrate exclusively on economic integration, and ultimately, the Soviet acceptance of the Cold War’s conclusion is to be overturned. Europe stands as a pivotal arena in the grand strategy of Russia, as it is within this context—shaped by geopolitical and geoeconomic considerations—that Russia can assert a distinctive position.
From Putin’s viewpoint, a restructuring of Europe is deemed essential to amend the “shame” of Gorbachev’s negotiations – very much in line with the principles established at the Congress of Vienna and the Yalta Conference. In line with this longstanding tradition, Russia has once again reminded Europeans that the sanctity of borders was but a fleeting concept in history. From the Russian perspective, the borders of Europe have undergone numerous shifts with each passing century. The acquisition of Ukrainian lands is portrayed in the Russian narrative as merely a “standard phase in the evolution of Soviet borders since the 1990s – initially contracting, and now expanding.”
Thirdly, we must consider the global level. Vladimir Putin aspires for Russia to ascend to the ranks of the major powers, a goal that can only be realised through proper acknowledgement from the United States. A fresh multipolar world ought to be negotiated with Russia’s equal involvement – rather than solely between Washington and Beijing. Putin regards Russia as a remarkable power that has shaped the dynamics of global politics, at times in a conservative manner and at other times in a revolutionary fashion.
Considering the swiftly ageing demographic of Russia and a world economy that is increasingly focused on decarbonisation, including in China, he is diligently working, with a forward-looking perspective for the 21st century, to transform the remaining resources of the Russian Federation into a more sustainable and advantageous position by the conclusion of his career and life. Russia seeks a change in the established regulations. To the detriment of Ukraine and Europe alike.
And here we find the essence of Trump’s transformation in foreign policy. The genuine inflection point in the dynamics between the US and Russia was not the election triumph of Trump, but rather his assertion that the US was “simply a mediator” in this conflict. The United States is poised to ease its commitments to Kyiv with remarkable haste, aiming to usher both sides towards negotiations. This move is not driven by benevolence, but rather to alleviate the strain of American engagement in the conflict while safeguarding its current “investments” in Ukraine.
Putin responded with notable enthusiasm to Trump’s interest in Ukrainian rare earths, promptly extending an invitation for joint mining ventures in Ukraine. From Putin’s viewpoint, this would suggest American acquiescence to the alterations in borders. He even proposed the idea of collaborative ventures between Russia and America in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia. This, consequently, stirred discontent among nationalist factions, as the portrayal of a crucial defensive battle against Western imperialism is a key element of Russian propaganda.
However, ideology in Russia tends to be a matter of seasonal trends – for Putin, transitioning to a discourse of geopolitical business is hardly a challenge. During the press conference today, he personally broached the topic of potentially reinstating gas supplies to Europe, possibly via a consortium involving both the US and Russia.
The issue is situated in a different realm altogether. Moscow is not seeking mediation from the US; rather, it desires direct negotiations with the US. Engaging with Trump’s disarmament proposals and advocating for a swift normalisation of air traffic and financial transactions—these actions aim to persuade Washington to eventually recognise Russia, initially in an informal capacity and subsequently in a more substantive manner, as the preeminent European power.
Trump’s mediation thus far gives the impression that this is simply a local, post-Soviet conflict among Eastern Slavs—a sort of Yugoslavia 2.0. Consequently, a scenario emerges where a resolution might be attained through adept American diplomacy and carefully calibrated pressure applied to both parties.
That is not in line with Moscow’s desires. The narrative surrounding ceasefires between Russia and Ukraine is marked by swift collapses. Indeed, Ukraine represents the baseline objective. However, there is considerably more at stake. That is exactly why Russia will persist in its strategic manoeuvres – tying the acceptance of a ceasefire to a series of escalating concessions, which may ultimately culminate in extensive demands on a European or even global scale.
A unilateral American withdrawal from supporting Ukrainian NATO membership, the insistence on demilitarised buffer zones along the NATO-Russia border, or the proposition of a US-Russian peace conference encompassing all of Europe – any of these could emerge as potential stipulations. Should these conditions remain unmet, Russia may persist with its military endeavours until Ukraine experiences a complete social and political disintegration from within. The Kursk Oblast has effectively been regained, and the fundamental objective of “de-sovereignty” remains attainable through methods that, while expensive, have demonstrated their efficacy.
It is precisely due to the ambiguity surrounding Trump’s potential role—whether he can merely offer sporadic assistance or evolve into a strategic ally—that Moscow seeks assurances. It may seem paradoxical, yet Russian foreign policy does not aim for a broad dismantling of international law; rather, it is intent on solidifying its own acquisitions. The Kremlin has been diligently crafting a makeshift institutional framework for a world beyond the UN, particularly through its engagement with BRICS over the years. In light of the documented withdrawal of Bucharest’s NATO membership promise and the integration of non-European players such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and India in stabilising the post-war landscape, it is clear that Russia seeks to entrench its influence within robust frameworks.
Moscow appears to be acutely aware of the limited timeframe leading up to the US midterm elections – it seeks to ascertain the facts before the geopolitical landscape undergoes a significant transformation. This is exactly the reason Russia is advocating for genuine treaties and formal agreements. Lavrov and Putin would relish the opportunity for a Riyadh Congress to achieve a “final settlement regarding Europe.”
This geopolitical “international law of the great powers” would establish a two-tier world, fundamentally at odds with the existing constitution of Europe. Moreover, one must consider that, from Russia’s viewpoint, Europeans might be regarded as second-class citizens. A conflict at the very centre of Europe is currently under discussion among capitals beyond the continent itself, with proposals for the deployment of non-European peacekeeping forces being considered.
What Russia fails to adequately factor into its assessments is the possibility that Ukraine, Germany, and Europe are acutely aware of this very reason: In a context where both Russia and the USA are disrupting the post-war framework, and China stands out as the final defender of the status quo, clinging to the past is no longer sufficient.
A geopolitically adept and sovereign Europe, one that can articulate its own interests with clarity and support them with tangible means, would certainly emerge as a significant actor in both Russian and, by extension, contemporary American foreign policy. Moscow does not regard such a scenario as probable. However, the Kremlin has erred in the past.
Author: Alexey Yusupov
+ There are no comments
Add yours