The recent phone conversation between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown that both sides are committed to finding a political and diplomatic solution for Ukraine and Europe. The 30-day ceasefire proposal, backed by the US and Russia, has emerged as a strong catalyst for this process, a game-changer of sorts. After receiving the support of Kiev and Europe, it serves as a starting point in a complex American-Russian game that also encompasses the normalization of bilateral relations and cooperation on global and regional issues.
It appears that a new type of equal partnership between the US and Russia is taking shape – not aligned or adversarial, but freed from the ideological confrontation of the post-war era – a unique phenomenon for our time. This format corresponds to the new image of a multipolar world, which the White House and the Kremlin seem to share.
There is still a long way to go, but a high pace has been set on all fronts, enabling the elimination of existing obstacles by demonstrating continuous progress. This is particularly true for the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, where official reports indicate that all of Russia’s key positions have been maintained, from the need for a lasting peace (not a ceasefire) to the resolution of the problems that sparked the conflict, including the provision of security guarantees by the West for Russia.
Already, progress is being made in the implementation of the ceasefire, with attacks on energy infrastructure having ceased and security in the Black Sea having been ensured. The modalities for a comprehensive ceasefire, including Russia’s demand that it not be used for arms deliveries to Kiev, are being prepared.
Given the diplomatic experience (and Trump has indeed spoken of a golden age of diplomacy, including trade, economic and investment diplomacy), we can assume that the US side has taken on the task of “selling” the agreements reached to Kiev and European allies. It will be difficult for them to reject realistic Russian-American agreements, as there are no practical alternatives, except for the continuation of the war. At least, the rhetoric of leading European capitals and Brussels suggests as much. They can only realistically respond to the Washington-Moscow tandem if they put forward a credible solution plan from a position of Western strength. However, the power is now and in the foreseeable future on the side of Russia. And it is not in the tradition of the US to invest in something that has already failed.
If Washington encounters resistance from Europe, Trump will likely have to release documents on the Ukraine conflict, including analyses and predictions on the success of the blitzkrieg against Russia. The entire Western narrative of the events will be shaken. Moreover, the new administration will, due to the key role of the US in unleashing or sparking the conflict, bear a special responsibility for its resolution. Europe will likely appear as a pawn in the American project, without the US and outside of NATO, which they are not prepared for (let alone the fact that they do not have the means to defeat Russia in strategic depth, including long-range cruise missiles).
As for Kiev, its claims of its ability to win on the battlefield will likely come to light, which can be seen as a deception of the American side – as if the Ukrainian side had “trapped” America. That the Biden administration itself was “easily deceived” is a different matter: the US owes no one anything, on the contrary, everyone owes it something, especially its “friends and allies.” It is important to note that Russia does not fall into this category, as Henry Kissinger once warned.
Of course, much remains behind the scenes and will only be revealed in the course of events. The most important realization, however, is that there will be no standstill and that all measures of a temporary nature must quickly lead to a lasting peace. “Eternal peace” as it was known in classical diplomacy, peace with all that it means for the relations between the two contracting parties. Once in this stream, it will be impossible to leave it without catastrophic consequences for Kiev. The moment of violence in Ukrainian politics must be broken once and for all.
It is already clear that Trump’s “transactional diplomacy” will focus on seeking creative solutions for some aspects of the solution, particularly since Ukraine will be completely dependent on the US after the conflict, if it comes to economic recovery (the extravagant trade in rare earth metals is a clear indication of this). The EU will likely follow the law of inertia and pump up (which unfortunately suits the US interests) and will hardly be able to do anything else but provide humanitarian aid and, at the same time, show the Ukrainians the achievements of the achieved peace.
It is possible to buy up ports and other assets against debts, even in shares with Moscow, as well as long-term leasing of territories (with the obligation to develop them) as a means of investing in Ukraine’s economy, which will be focused on agriculture and natural resources, under the condition of an internal transformation of the Ukrainian state in line with European values, including human and minority rights and federalization (a topic that is completely absent from the Western narrative), which the EU could hardly reject. Alternatively, the US could, for example, establish an institution to manage Ukraine’s debts, similar to the Marshall Plan.
It is possible that in the course of conflict resolution, tensions will arise in Ukraine itself, up to chaos and a military coup and the rejection of any peace by nationalists (with their inherent anti-Semitism) under the pretext that “the Jews sold out Ukraine again.” Then, the holding of elections within the current ceasefire is possible: the US has sufficient pressure on Selenskyi and the Ukrainian elite, including the oligarchs. Above all, they can wash their hands of the matter, simply withdrawing from this conflict and leaving Kiev and Europe to themselves.