Putin and Trump: Who's Stood on Whom in Ukraine Negotiations?

BarcelonaDonald Trump and Vladimir Putin spent more than an hour and a half on the phone yesterday. The US president wanted the Russian leader to agree to the 30-day truce that had already been agreed upon with Ukraine.But despite their long conversation, Putin didn't agree. The only concession was a supposed 30-day halt to attacks on energy infrastructure, a promise he reportedly broke the next day, according to Ukraine's accusations this morning. It was enough to prevent Trump's initial truce from blowing up the process and allow them to continue talking, but it made it clear that peace in Ukraine—even the initial truce—is still a long way off. But that—perhaps with the sole exception of Trump—everyone knew.

The outcome of the call has been sold as a victory for Putin within Russia, and it certainly is, because the Russian leader managed to "move the ball forward" without committing to anything significant and "at the same time inflate Trump's ego by giving him the impression that they are friends and working in unison," notes Abel Riu. "Russia is interested in buying time."

In order not to break up the fight, Putin made a small concession, that of stopping the attacks on the energy system., "which is also a point that benefits him, because Ukraine's attacks have recently been focusing precisely on Russia's refining and oil tanker centers," as is the case with this morning's attack in southern Russia, notes José Antonio Gurpegui, a researcher at the Franklin Institute. We can talk about a victory for Putin, but it's not so clear that it's a failure for Trump, because the conversation "is a first step and at least some conversations have begun" to try to stop the war, says Gurpegui.

Now, as the analyst warns, "this war represents different things for Trump and Putin." "For Trump, this is a temporary war, as the Korean War was for President Dwight Eisenhower, who wanted to resolve it with an armistice (still in force today) to focus on what he considered the real problem, which was the USSR and the Cold War. Now, for Trump, the main concern is China and the war [he said he doesn't care what might happen to Ukraine], but for Putin, on the other hand, it is a structural war, as it is for Ukraine," says Gurpegui.

That is why Putin's first red line remains Ukraine's entry into NATO. But in Tuesday's call with Trump, in addition, Putin put his conditions on the table for accepting the 30-day truce., demands "that seem designed to be totally unacceptable for Ukraine," notes Abel Riu. Putin demands that, while the truce lasts, Ukraine stop receiving weapons from both the United States and Europe, stop receiving intelligence data—an even more crucial point—and also stop all recruitment of soldiers, but he doesn't offer the same for the Russian army, which could continue mobilizing recruits and rearming. "Ukraine has already accepted a ceasefire without preconditions, but now Russia says it does want preconditions, and these are unacceptable for Ukraine," says Rio.

"Putin has far less incentive than Zelensky to pursue a ceasefire" because "the balance of power on the battlefield" favors him, notes Kristian Herbolzheimer, director of the Catalan International Institute for Peace (ICIP). However, Trump could force him to negotiate. "with economic incentives such as the lifting of sanctions or the promise of investments," the analyst notes.

"The mediation style may work, the actor (Trump) probably won't."

"Indeed, the negotiation style was defined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and it is that of the carrot and the stick," says the director of ICIP, and believes that this mediation through threat and coercion, instead of the usual conciliatory role that conflict mediators have, is a strategy that can work with " , Three qualities that are in question with Donald Trump"We have to differentiate between the [negotiation] style of the actor; the style of mediation through power could work if the actor were consistent, persevering, and even-tempered, but since Trump isn't, I have serious doubts about this process," adds Herbolzheimer.

"I wouldn't say it was a failure, but rather a clash between Trump and reality, because his campaign promise to end the conflict in 24 hours was regrettable; it reflected a total ignorance of the reality of negotiating to end a war," notes José María Peredo, professor of Communication and Politics.

But Peredo considers it positive that "the thread of communication between Washington and Moscow" has been "restored," a line that had been broken during Joe Biden's time in the White House, when he "maintained an almost visceral confrontation with Putin." For the expert, the normalization of relations between the United States and Russia, the secondary objective of Wednesday's call, "is not a bad thing, even if Putin is seen as the aggressor that he is, and as an agent of European destabilization, which he is. It's positive that bridges are being rebuilt and that people are talking instead of confronting each other." However, he warns that "Putin's second objective, after Ukraine, is to weaken Europe and strengthen himself as an international power," and that Donald Trump's rapprochement is "facilitating" this.

The one who probably loses is Zelensky, who has little room for maneuver. Peredo sees it clear that he will have to make concessions and points especially to Crimea, "which was already in Russian hands before the war and, in fact, it must be understood that it was originally Russian territory where they also have a naval base, Sevastopol, which is strategic for Russia." It remains to be seen how much of the remaining territory occupied by Russia (currently 20% of Ukraine) he will have to give up.