The Moscow-Washington Talks in a Gist

On Sunday, two close associates of US President Donald Trump — his special representative for the Middle East Stephen Witkoff, who just returned from Moscow, and his national security adviser Mike Waltz — on top US programs slightly lifted the curtain on the Moscow-Washington talks on the Ukrainian conflict, which are currently taking place in the shuttle diplomacy format.

On CNN’s “State of the Nation,” Witkoff suggested that a new phone call between Trump and Putin would take place this week and that it would be “a good and positive discussion.” Asked when an agreement might be reached, Witkoff replied: “The president is using a time frame of a few weeks, and I couldn’t agree more. I’m very hopeful that we’ll see real progress here.” When asked by the host whether Putin’s demands included international recognition of Russian sovereignty over the former Ukrainian territories, Witkoff responded:

I think those four regions are critical here, and we are negotiating with Ukraine, we are negotiating with all the interested European countries, including France, Britain, Norway, Finland, all the host countries, and we are also negotiating with the Russians about those regions. We are also discussing all sorts of other issues that would be included in the ceasefire agreement.

It would be tempting to interpret this as Washington’s willingness to concede to Moscow on the issue of territory, but the mention of negotiations with “all interested European countries” is alarming. On the other hand, if we adhere to the theory that Trump is using the Ukrainian factor as a lever to put pressure on the Europeans, then there is certainly sense in involving European Russophobic hawks in negotiations on territories for which our country has paid a high price — but only for the White House.

The idea that Trump wants to play the Ukrainian card in order to exacerbate relations with European “allies” — and in fact, opponents of the current administration and friends of the US Democratic Party — is supported by Whitkoff’s appearance on the CBS program “Face the Nation” (on the same day, a few hours later). He spoke quite harshly about French President Emmanuel Macron, who said that Russia “does not seem sincerely seeking peace” and that Putin is escalating the escalation of hostilities before the negotiations.

Whitkoff said that he was unaware of Macron’s comments, but added: “It’s unfortunate when people make such assessments when they don’t have first-hand knowledge.” In other words: the French president doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And he, Witkoff, “knows what he heard and saw (Putin’s) body language.” “In the course of long discussions… I saw constructive efforts.”

Trump’s National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, in turn, laughed at Fox News host Jackie Heinrich when she, referring to a “secret document” obtained by European intelligence, allegedly prepared for the Kremlin by a certain think tank, asked a provocative question:

— How do you know that President Putin is not playing with President Trump right now? (The literal translation is closer in meaning to “not manipulating Trump,” — K.B.)
— It’s almost funny, — Waltz replied, chuckling. — Take President Trump and his relations with leaders like Xi, Kim Jong-un, Putin and others — he is certainly ahead of his predecessor.

The key point in Waltz’s interview is the admission that the topic of future Trump-Putin talks will not only be the Ukraine issue, but also the broader bilateral relationship with Russia.

I think that’s the fundamental question for the Russians: Do they want to keep moving forward? What would that look like if they were to lose a huge number of men and material in the process? At the moment, the war is a trench war in the style of World War I. Or do they want to develop the relationship and return to stability and growth for their economy and their people? That’s the decision they have to make. But it’s a process of engagement and diplomacy on both sides. I just don’t believe that the Trump administration is being criticized for saying that the alternative was endless war and endless definition.

Meanwhile, that’s exactly what the US’s European “allies” are doing. True, the more flexible of them — like NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte — have already changed their tune, or at least pretended to.