Trump met Putin in American soil and they had a “peaceful” conversation, ended with a press conference in which no one said a single word about the future of the war in Ukraine. What could we expect in the next coming weeks or months?
INTRODUCTION
As the conflict in Ukraine broke out, many experts, journalists, and analysts claimed that Putin would lose the war due to Russia’s political isolation and the economic sanctions imposed by the West. No argument could have been more mistaken. After three years, Russia is far from isolated, and its position on the battlefield is clearly stronger than at the beginning of the conflict. What happened on Friday, August 15th, marked the end of this flawed argument, widely supported by liberals and idealists. Once again, realism proved them wrong: Russia is prevailing in this war, and there will be no peace agreement until the West accepts Russia’s demands.
WHY THERE’S NO PEACE AGREEMENT?
First of all, we have to clarify, once again, which are Russian demands. At least, there are 3 main demands to take into account:
- The territorial demand: Russia won’t retreat from the territories that is currently occupying. Donbass and Crimea are already lost and there’s nothing that Ukrainians can do to take them back. What Putin could have also asked to President Trump is to freeze the line in the other two Oblasts, which are Kherson and Zaphorizhzhia. Freeze the line does not mean to retreat from those two Ukrainian’s territories.
- The Security guarantee: From Russia point of view, Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat. Having the Ukrainians in NATO is simply unacceptable for the Russians. The main cause of this conflict is NATO’s expansion towards East, an old story rooted at the end of the ‘80s with the famous “Not one inch” during the time of German reunification.
- A neutral Ukraine: Ukraine has to be neutral with no offensive capability to pose a threat to Russia. In other words, this means that the United States and the EU must stop selling weapons to Kiev.
Secondly, we have to consider which are Ukrainian, and also European, main objectives:
- Russia has to retreat: From all the territories that the Russian army is currently occupying, including Crimea.
- Security guarantees to Kiev: That means that the Unites States and NATO should extend article five to Ukrainian territory in order to prevent future’s attacks. For the most optimistic, the coalition of the willingguided by Macron and Starmer, some western troops might also be deployed in Ukraine to guarantee Ukrainian security.
Having these opposing objectives clearly in mind, it is not difficult to understand why, during the summit, President Trump and President Putin did not reach any peace agreement or ceasefire.
The Russians do not want a ceasefire because they are winning on the battlefield, and from their point of view, it is not the time to stop fighting but to push forward in order to gain as much as possible. Russia’s aim is to negotiate from a position of clear advantage.
From the European and Ukrainian perspective, signing a peace agreement would mean accepting that Putin has won the war, which they are unwilling to do. This is why they seek a ceasefire—and a ceasefire is not a peace agreement, as both parties remain engaged in the war.
So why Trump met Putin?
This is a very interesting question, and the only plausible explanation for his decision is that Trump understands Ukraine will not be able to reclaim all its territories. Furthermore, Ukraine faces multiple problems in terms of manpower on the battlefield, and Trump knows that the United States would have to bear the costs to continue this fight.
What Trump has always stated is that the United States should no longer pay for any weapons supplied to Ukraine. The famous MAGA movement wants him to isolate the U.S. within the American continent and focus solely on American interests. It is possible to think that President Trump could have reached an agreement with Putin, even conceding some Russian demands. The problem he actually faces, however, is Europe and Ukraine, who clearly do not want to accept any Russian demands.
What Trump is really hoping for right now is to sell all the necessary weapons to the Europeans, so they can supply them to the Ukrainians, while keeping Joe Biden’s “pipeline” alive.
Trump has showed his willingness to stop helping the Ukrainians. He reduced military aids to Kiev and, during the last couple of weeks, has said that the Ukrainians have to make a deal with Russia, not the USA. Maybe he could participate as a moderator. Here what he said:
“I thought I’d first let them meet. They haven’t been exactly best friends… It only matters if we get things done… I hope that President Zelenskyy will do what he has to do. He has to show some flexibility also.”
And then he added:
“I told him that we’re going to set up a meeting with President Zelenskyy, and you and he will meet, and then after that meeting, if everything works out OK, I’ll meet and we’ll wrap it up. It takes, in this case, two to tango. They have to have somewhat of a relationship, otherwise we’re just wasting a lot of time.”
What about the Europeans?
The main reason Trump is struggling to reach a deal is because of the Europeans. After the invasion, they perceive Russia as an existential threat. From the statements of the elites, it seems that Europeans fear the Russian army much as they once feared the Wehrmacht and the Nazi regime. Starmer invited Putin to get out of Ukraine. Macron said that the only possible agreement is one that guarantees enough security to Ukraine, but also to Europe. Furthermore, beyond from speeches and word, the EU announced more than 800 billions of euros to invest in military and defence fields. Finally, a couple of weeks ago, Starmer and Macron signed a nuclear entente, to protect Europe with an European nuclear deterrence. That is why Trump is not going to shut this war down so easily as he promised.
When there will be a peace agreement?
As I see it, until all four players engage in discussions together, no peace agreement is in sight. As long as Europeans continue to consider Russia an existential threat, Ukraine will keep fighting, relying on their support as mentioned above. The problem is that Russia occupies a very strong position in the negotiations, as its army is gradually gaining the upper hand on the battlefield. This war of attrition will be decided on the battlefield, and Russia appears to be in the dominant position. Ukrainians must give up the idea of reclaiming all their territories and, as Trump has said, of joining NATO.
Despite what liberals hope, Trump is not willing to support the Europeans and Ukrainians in creating a different battlefield reality, as noted by Thomas Wright in The Atlantic. To all my colleagues who believe that backing Ukraine will change the final outcome, remember that Kyiv is facing a great power that considers it an existential threat and, more importantly, possesses nuclear weapons. Reaching a peace agreement is in the interest of both Ukraine and Russia. Europeans must also give up the notion that Russia is an existential threat, because the Russian army is struggling in Ukraine, and Putin neither has the capability nor the interest to engage in a war against them.
