|
Ukraine – Trump And Putin To Hold Peace Talks – OT 2025-177
The outcome of yesterday's three hours meeting between President Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff and President Putin of Russia was surprising.
The presidents seem to have agreed on a meeting, the first in four years between the two head of states.
As Yury Ushakov, an aide to President Putin, commented after Witkoff's visit:
This meeting took place in a business-like atmosphere and was quite constructive. Both sides can be satisfied with the outcomes of this conversation. The discussion focused on matters dealing with future efforts to work together in the context of resolving the Ukraine crisis. Once again, it was noted that Russia-US relations could be placed on a totally different, mutually beneficial footing, which would be in stark contrast with the way these relations have evolved in recent years.
Regarding the Ukraine agenda, at the proposal of the United States, there was a principled agreement to hold a top-level bilateral meeting in the coming days, which means a meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.
Together with our American colleagues, we are about to start working on the specific parameters of this meeting and its venue. Basically, the venue has also been coordinated, and we will communicate on this point a little later.
…
Next week was suggested as a possible time frame [for holding the meeting], but since the effort to prepare for this important event is only just beginning for both parties, it is hard to say how long the preparations will take. That said, the option of holding this meeting sometime next week was on the table, and we hold quite a positive view in this regard.
This U.S. side has confirmed the news of a summit which may potentially already take place next week.
The urgency with which the U.S. side requested the summit tells us that the Ukrainian army is near to a breakdown and total defeat.
It seems that President Putin has offered Trump a big deal – one that goes far beyond the rather annoying side issue of Ukraine.
This could could include offers of new agreements on nuclear arms restrictions and other questions of global interest. But Trump's interests are mostly driven by their economic impact. A Russian offer to allow for huge investment opportunities in Russia for U.S. companies on preferential grounds might have been the real winner. Additionally sanctions could be lifted and air-traffic between the countries could resume. Both sides could profit from these points.
But before these big things can happen the Ukraine issue must be put aside.
Russia's demands in this regard have been named for some time. A simple ceasefire at the line of contact is not sufficient. Russia wants full control of the four oblast (Donetzk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaparoizhia) which were already included into the Russian constitution. It wants a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO and that it will lose the military support it currently has from the West.
Trump might be willing to concede those points. A majority of Ukrainians wants to end the war:
In Gallup’s most recent poll of Ukraine — conducted in early July — 69% say they favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, compared with 24% who support continuing to fight until victory.
Even Zelenski now seems to agree with them (machine translation):
"Yesterday, various potential formats of meetings for peace at the level of leaders in the near future were discussed: two bilateral formats, one trilateral. Ukraine is not afraid of meetings and expects the same bold approach from the Russian side. It's time to end the war, " the Ukrainian president wrote.
But warmongers in Washington, in Europe and in Ukraine will try to sabotage anything that may lead to peace.
There are also smaller steps that could be sold as the success of a summit. A pause of long range drone attacks would be a noticeable though minimal concession that could be beneficial for both sides.
But overall I am not optimistic about an outcome.
It will be difficult to even establish an agenda for the meeting. Secretary of State Rubio and Foreign Minister Lavrov will need some time to haggle over the details. If the summit proceeds it might well end without results.
The whole thing could be a ploy. Trump may tell Putin to surrender and, as Putin will certainly not do so, use the summit to declare that Russia is guilty and must be punished by more sanction and other means. U.S. support for Ukraine would then resume.
It would not change the inevitable outcome but prolong the war for probably more than a year.
To: Julian | Aug 7 2025 16:15 utc | 25
> Putin set to sign another “Minsk 3” with the “Agreement Incapable West”.
He signed Minsk 1 and 2 and after Ukraine didn’t honor the contract he went in.
And just like the west he used the time to build up Russia’s army and especially the economy.
Ah, the score, one side left out.
Let’s start with, they got:
Cremea.
Donezk, Luhansk
Zaporizhne Nuclear Power Plant (they handed the Tschernobyl desaster back)
See of Azov
Mariopol, Melitopol, Berdyansk, Tokmak, Lysichansk, Bakmuth, Toretsk, Avdiivka (whatever you spell it, as you see I am not from the area),
Prokrows, Slaviansk, Kramatorsk on the menu (I will come back with I told you so)
strong economy
improved relations with China
better position in Africa
Oreshniks going into production plus one, it seems, successful test
mass production of FPVs and other drone categories – Ukraine had a good start, but Russia seems to have taken the strong lead now
a relatively normal life all over Russia (minus Kursk, for which Ukraine also paid)
best land (black earth) in the world – however not clear how much is poluted and usable after the war
That’s what comes to my mind on the Russian score card, maybe others see more items, whatever.
Now to the other side:
> No Odessa.
I am not sure how Russian the city really is, if Russia really needs it, or if it would be much more of a headache actually. All in all, Russia has already some beautiful cities. They can easily live without it.
> No Nikolaev.
OK.
> No Black Sea Coast.
Aeh, doesn’t Russia have plenty of black sea coast?
> No Landbridge to Transnistria.
Would be nice for Hungary. And of course Transnistria. But what does this have to do with Russia.
> No Kherson City.
Well, unlike Ukraine, Russia didn’t lose anybody for this city, when they retreated.
All the people from the city were free to relocated anywhere in Russia, so Russia still got the population.
> No Zaporizhia City.
OK. As colonel Trukhan said, taking the city would cost 200’000 soldiers lifes. Maybe not worth it.
> No Sumy.
OK.
> No Kharkiv.
OK. Does Kharkov and Sumy want to belong to Russia?
> No landbridge to Hungary (And you wonder why Orban doesn’t take Hungary out of NATO! Hello).
See transnistria.
> No Denazification of Ukraine.
Oh, Ukraine won’t have any male population left, then how can they have any Nazis (whatever that is) left?
> No Demilitarization of Ukraine.
I see total demilitarization of all of Nato. This point goes clearly to Russia.
> How exactly is this a suitable outcome for Russia?
> It isn’t.
I have to count now. And the (terrible) game clearly isn’t over yet. If there comes a Minsk 3, the west
better keeps its word, or I see Oreshniks coming down hard. Anyway, it is best to count the result when the game has finished.
> But clearly Putin set to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Minsk 3 or not, who is in a stronger position? From the past, Putin is patient and eager to negotiate, but when he is not happy, he doesn’t fuck around but proceeds to action, that’s what I have seen. In the meantime he also works hard to improve Russia’s position in all kinds of directions.
> No doubt Xi & Modi have been on the phone to Putin urging him to cut a deal – they don’t want the heat!
How do you know what Xi and Modi think and want?
> I will be back next, or in a few weeks, to tell you all “I told you so”.
I am sure you will. Someone was asked how did the French Revolution go? Answer: to early to say.
Let’s wait and see. Hope we get the time.
> Why?
> The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
> A leopard named Putin DOES NOT change his spots.
To be honest, maybe that would be good for Russia if he continues his way.
C
Posted by: CSOstsgx60 | Aug 7 2025 21:47 utc | 157
Posted by: Keme | Aug 7 2025 19:37 utc | 128
Putin is a representative of Russia’s oligarchy, which wants to secure its position in the pending absolute capitalist world order driven by Western aggression, whose goal is to dominate the world.
Yes, I agree with that. There is a major distinction with Western capital, however: Russian (and even more so Chinese) capitalists don’t rule freely. They have to make compromises. As a slogan: in the US, politics is purely a function of capital interests (this is widely documented and going on for a long time). In Russia and China, politics are not sidelined by capital, as it was in the wild and horrible Russian 1990s. There’s a good reason why a number of Russian oligarchs found themselves in prison, exile or defenestrated.
So while I agree the interests of Russian’s oligarchs are on Putin’s mind, he is not their puppet. Yeltsin was. An empirical argument for this: Russia threw several spanners into US plans. There’s (at the very least) no convergene between US/EU and Russian capital interests but I think it’s better to accept the nation as a concept to explain this war.
Allowing Western capital investment in Russia may be the cost for obtaining that role for Russia’s oligarchy.
Do you see something supporting that claim? Why doesn’t Russian capital profit from the (violent) exclusion of competing capital instead? Sure, there are now restrictions to Russian investments but there’s a lot of money to be made in the East.
Was the reason for the SMO really because of the stated threat to Russian national security with Ukraine NATO membership?
I haven’t seen a convincing reason why not. But there are Western plans to carve up Russia, as happened with Yugoslavia. The threat was/is real.
The analysis by Bichler and Nitzan argues military conflicts, especially conflicts involving oil producing regions, increases profit taking by the oil producers. Furthermore, many of these military conflicts are initiated on behalf of the oil producers.
I have never heard of Bichler and Nitzan before, so I had a look. And while I don’t have time to read the 400 pages of “Capital as Power”, I did read The Road to Gaza (17 pages). Shimshon Bichler lives in Israel, and I wanted to know what he has to say on the Gaza genocide: the article is very interesting if you care about state, religion, power and history. Thank you for mentioning B & N.
I can follow your statement about oil producers’ profits from wars. I am not aware of oil producers starting wars. I assume that USA and USSR/Russia count as oil producers but they play in a different league than Venezuela, Iran, OPEC. Also, while the USA is a serial war starter, USSR/Russia are not.
The SMO could not have been activated without Russian oligarchy approval. The analysis by Bichler and Nitzan indicates the SMO has not produced above average returns for oil producers, including Russia’s.
I don’t think Russian oligarchy started the SMO; at least one faction openly disowned the SMO and some still do (Nabiullina is often counted as a representative).
In total: I still don’t think that the Ukraine is foremost a war about oil or resources. I see it as a conflict about hegemony. Its (necessary) dogmatic veil is “liberal democracy” vs. “traditional values” but I see no class component (such as “capitalism” vs. “socialism”). It is just one battleground in a much larger fight of US unipolarity vs. several proponents of multi-polarity (the latter don’t even aim to subdue the USA, they just don’t accept US dominance).
Posted by: Konami | Aug 7 2025 22:04 utc | 163
|
