Putin made Trump wait, then strung him along
US President Donald Trump's phone call with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, didn't take a tangible step towards ending the hostilities in Ukraine, let alone finding an enduring peace. Rather, it provided further evidence of Putin's ability to string along and outsmart Trump.
For starters, Putin sent a signal by making Trump wait for more than an hour to talk. Putin was speaking at a televised conference with Russian businesspeople and even made a joke about the delay when told the time for his call was approaching.
This was clearly designed to show his alpha status, both to Trump and to the Russian public. Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, reportedly was made to wait eight hours by Putin when he arrived in Moscow last week for talks.
And after Tuesday's call, Putin only agreed to pause attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure for 30 days, rather than the total ceasefire that had been proposed by Trump and agreed to by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
And even this agreement lacked clarity. The lengthy Kremlin statement on the call said the pause would only apply to attacks on energy infrastructure, while the vaguer White House read-out said it included a much broader 'energy and infrastructure' agreement. The Kremlin will doubtless stick to the narrow concept.
The Kremlin's statement also said Trump proposed this idea and Putin reacted positively. This seems implausible given that pausing attacks on energy infrastructure would be the least costly partial ceasefire for Russia to agree to.
It seems more likely this proposal came from Putin as a 'compromise,' even though Trump was earlier threatening fire and brimstone if Russia did not agree to a proper ceasefire.
Russia will still be able to continue its ground offensive in Ukraine, where it has the upper hand thanks to Ukrainian manpower shortages (despite its own horrendous losses). It will also be able to maintain its bombardment of Ukrainian civilian targets that has already cost possibly as many as 100,000 civilian lives and half a trillion US dollars in mooted reconstruction costs.
Ukraine, meanwhile, has only rarely hit residential areas in Russia. However, it has achieved considerable success with long-distance drone attacks on Russian oil refineries and energy infrastructure, threatening one of the main funding sources of Moscow's war effort. Damage at the AES Group private oil refinery the day after a Russian shock drone attack in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine this week. Sergey Kozlov / EPA
The Kremlin's read-out of the call also noted that various sticking points remain to achieve a full ceasefire in Ukraine.
These included the Kyiv regime's 'inability to negotiate in good faith,' which has 'repeatedly sabotaged and violated the agreements reached.' The Kremlin also accused Ukrainian militants of 'barbaric terrorist crimes' in the Kursk region of Russia that Ukraine briefly occupied.
This is not new language, but shows breathtaking chutzpah. It's Russia, in fact, that has broken several agreements vowing to respect Ukraine's borders, as well as numerous provisions of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of civilian populations and prisoners of war. It has even violated the Genocide Convention in the eyes of some scholars.
That a US president could let this kind of statement go unchallenged underscores the extent of the White House's volte-face on Ukraine.
The Kremlin also asserted that a 'key principle' for further negotiations must be the cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence to Ukraine.
Given Trump has already frozen arms and intelligence support to Ukraine to make Zelensky more compliant, Putin no doubt thinks he might do so again. This, in turn, would strengthen Russia's leverage in negotiations.
Trump has already given away huge bargaining chips that could have been used to pressure Russia towards a just and enduring outcome. These include: holding talks with Russia without Ukraine present,
ruling out security guarantees for Ukraine and NATO membership in the longer term and
foreshadowing that Ukraine should cede its sovereign territory in defiance of international law.
Putin may be content to string out the ceasefire talks as long as he can in the hopes Russian troops can consolidate their hold on Ukrainian territory and completely expel Ukrainian forces from the Kursk region inside Russia.
He shows no sign of resiling from his key aims since the beginning of the war – to reimpose Russian dominance over Ukraine and its foreign and domestic policies, and to retain the territories it has illegally annexed.
The fact Moscow has signed treaties to formally incorporate and assimilate these Ukrainian regions fully into Russia – rather than merely occupying them – underlines how this has always been a war of imperial reconquest rather than a response to perceived military threat. Putin poses with the heads of four Ukrainian regions at a ceremony to sign treaties to annex the territories at the Kremlin in 2022. Photo: Grigory Sysoyev / Kremlin Pool / Sputnik
At the same time, if he can get much of what he wants, Putin may just be tempted to end the war to further a more business-as-usual relationship with the US. Trump has dangled various carrots to encourage Putin to do this, from renewed US investment in Russia to easing sanctions to ice hockey games.
Ukraine's immediate reaction to the Trump-Putin call appears to be cautiously accepting of a limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure. This is no doubt to avoid incurring Trump's wrath.
At the same time, Ukraine's bottom line remains firm: Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty are non-negotiable
it must be able to choose its own foreign alliances and partnerships, and
it must be able to defend itself, without limits on the size of its army or its weaponry.
The only way to square the circle would be to freeze the conflict at the current front lines in Ukraine and leave the status of the annexed Ukrainian regions to be resolved in future negotiations.
But even this would have little credibility unless Russia revoked its annexations and allowed international organisations and observers to enter the region to encourage a modicum of compliance with international law.
Jon Richardson is avisiting fellow at the Center for European Studies, Australian National University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US-China trade talks, Qin Shi Huang's western expedition: SCMP daily highlights
Catch up on some of SCMP's biggest China stories of the day. If you would like to see more of our reporting, please consider subscribing Top officials from China and the United States are expected to start a second day of negotiations in London on Tuesday morning local time, as the two sides strive to de-escalate a stand-off over trade and technology that has sent shock waves across the global economy. Chinese state media have sought to portray the escalating Los Angeles protests against President Donald Trump's immigration policies as proof of a broken government and the lack of social cohesion in the United States. Visitors look at depiction of human experiments at the Unit 731 museum in Harbin, in northeast China's Heilongjiang province. The facility was built to conduct research into germ warfare, weapons capabilities and the limits of the human body, rather than for mass extermination. Photo: AFP As thousands of students gather this week for the finals of the National History Day contest in the US state of Maryland, one research project may stand out – not only as a sobering reminder of an infamous, often forgotten Japanese military unit, but also for America's role in keeping its war crimes quiet.
Asia Times
5 hours ago
- Asia Times
Ukraine in a bind as Russia moves into Dnipropetrovsk
The Russian Ministry of Defense announced on Sunday (June 8) that its forces had entered Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk Region, which Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed is part of Russian President Vladimir Putin's buffer zone plan. This was foreseen as early as late August once the Battle of Pokrovsk began, but has been achieved even without capturing that strategic fortress town. Russian forces simply went around it after breaking through the southern Donbass front. This development puts Ukraine in a dilemma. It will now have to simultaneously fortify the Dnipropetrovsk front together with the northern Kharkov and southern Zaporozhye ones to guard against Russia using its new position to launch offensives into any of those three. This could put serious strain on the Ukrainian Armed Forces as they are already struggling to prevent a major breakthrough in the Sumy Region from Kursk. Coupled with a depletion of manpower and questions about continued US military-intelligence aid, this might be enough to collapse the frontlines. To be sure, that scenario has been bandied about many times since the invasion, but it now appears closer than ever. Observers also shouldn't forget that Putin told his US counterpart Donald Trump that he would respond to Ukraine's strategic drone strikes on Russia's strategic nuclear forces earlier this month, which could combine with the abovementioned two factors to achieve this long-desired breakthrough. Of course, the retaliation might just be a symbolic demonstration of force, but it could also be something more significant. Ukraine's best chance of preventing this is for the US to either get Russia to agree to freeze the frontlines or to go on another offensive. A frontline freeze could be achieved through a carrot-and-stick approach, proposing a better resource-centric strategic partnership in exchange for the US imposing crippling secondary sanctions on Russia's energy clients (specifically China and India, with likely waivers for the EU). Alternatively, the US could double down on military-intelligence aid if Russia still refuses. As for launching a new offensive, the 120,000 troops that Ukraine has assembled along the Belarusian border, according to President Alexander Lukashenko last summer, could either cross that frontier and/or one of Russia's internationally recognized frontiers. However, both possibilities stand only a slim chance of success: Russia has made it clear that it must achieve more of its goals in the conflict before agreeing to any ceasefire, while its success in pushing Ukraine out of Kursk bodes ill for other invasions. The likelihood of Ukraine cutting its losses by agreeing to more of Russia's demands for peace is nil. Therefore, it might inevitably opt, whether in lieu of the scenarios mentioned above or in parallel with one or both of them, to intensify its 'unconventional operations' against Russia. These refer to assassinations, strategic drone strikes and terrorism. All that will do, however, is provoke more (probably outsized) conventional retaliation from Russia and thus more pain on a Ukraine already poised for defeat. With an eye toward the endgame, it appears as though an inflection point has or is about to be reached in the sense of irreversibly shifting the military-strategic dynamics in Russia's favor. It's very difficult to imagine how Ukraine can extricate itself from this dilemma, although the conflict has already surprised observers on both sides before, so it cannot be entirely ruled out. But it's a far-fetched scenario while Ukraine's defeat increasingly seems imminent. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.
Asia Times
9 hours ago
- Asia Times
From Kent State to LA, using soldiers on civilians is high-risk
Responding to street protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 soldiers from the California National Guard into the city on June 7, 2025, to protect agents carrying out the raids. Trump also authorized the Pentagon to dispatch regular US troops 'as necessary' to support the California National Guard. The president's orders did not specify rules of engagement about when and how force could be used. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who did not request the National Guard and asserted it was not needed, criticized the president's decision as 'inflammatory' and warned it 'will only escalate tensions.' I am a historian who has written several books about the Vietnam War, one of the most divisive episodes in our nation's past. My recent book, 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' examines a historic clash on May 4, 1970, between anti-war protesters and National Guard troops at Kent State University in Ohio. The confrontation escalated into violence: troops opened fire on the demonstrators, killing four students and wounding nine others, including one who was paralyzed for life. In my view, dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting. Some active-duty units, as well as National Guard troops, are better prepared today than in 1970 to respond to riots and violent protests – but the vast majority of their training and their primary mission remains to fight, to kill and to win wars. Protests in Los Angeles began after federal agencies conducted immigration raids across the city on June 6, 2025. The National Guard is a force of state militias under the command of governors. It can be federalized by the president during times of national emergency or for deployment on combat missions overseas. Guardsmen train for one weekend per month and two weeks every summer. Typically, the Guard has been deployed to deal with natural disasters and support local police responses to urban unrest. Examples include riots in Detroit in 1967, Washington DC in 1968, Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992, and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the death of George Floyd. Presidents rarely deploy National Guard troops without state governors' consent. The main modern exceptions occurred in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied federal court orders to desegregate schools in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. In each case, the federal government sent troops to protect Black students from crowds of white protesters. The 1807 Insurrection Act grants presidents authority to use active-duty troops or National Guard forces to restore order within the United States. President Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, a narrower federal statute that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard in situations including 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Trump did not limit his order to Los Angeles. He authorized armed forces to protect immigration enforcement operations at any 'locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.' ICE officers and national guards confront protesters outside of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images The war in Vietnam had grown increasingly unpopular by early 1970, but protests intensified on April 30 when President Richard Nixon authorized expanding the conflict into Cambodia. At Kent State, after a noontime anti-war rally on campus on May 1, alcohol-fueled students harassed passing motorists in town and smashed storefront windows that night. On May 2, anti-war protesters set fire to the building where military officers trained Kent State students enrolled in the armed forces' Reserve Officer Training Corps program. In response, Republican Governor Jim Rhodes dispatched National Guard troops, against the advice of the university and many local officials, who understood the mood in the town of Kent and on campus far better than Rhodes did. County prosecutor Ron Kane had vehemently warned Rhodes that deploying the National Guard could spark conflict and lead to fatalities. Nonetheless, Rhodes – who was trailing in an impending Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat – struck the pose of a take-charge leader who wasn't going to be pushed around by a long-haired rabble. 'We're going to put a stop to this!' he shouted, pounding the table at a press conference in Kent on May 3. Hundreds of National Guard troops were deployed across town and on campus. University officials announced that further rallies were banned. Nonetheless, on May 4, some 2,000 to 3,000 students gathered on the campus Commons for another anti-war rally. They were met by 96 National Guardsmen, led by eight officers. There was confrontation in the air as student anger over Nixon's expansion of the war blended with resentment over the Guard's presence. Protesters chanted antiwar slogans, shouted epithets at the Guardsmen and made obscene gestures. Archival CBS News footage of the clash between campus anti-war protesters and Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State, May 4, 1970. The Guardsmen sent to Kent State had no training in de-escalating tension or minimizing the use of force. Nonetheless, their commanding officer that day, Ohio Army National Guard Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury, decided to use them to break up what the Department of Justice later deemed a legal assembly. In my view, it was a reckless judgment that inflamed an already volatile situation. Students started showering the greatly outnumbered Guardsmen with rocks and other objects. In violation of Ohio Army National Guard regulations, Canterbury neglected to warn the students that he had ordered Guardsmens' rifles loaded with live ammunition. As tension mounted, Canterbury failed to adequately supervise his increasingly fearful troops – a cardinal responsibility of the commanding officer on the scene. This fundamental failure of leadership increased confusion and resulted in a breakdown of fire control discipline – officers' responsibility to maintain tight control over their troops' discharge of weapons. When protesters neared the Guardsmen, platoon sergeant Mathew McManus shouted 'Fire in the air!' in a desperate attempt to prevent bloodshed. McManus intended for troops to shoot above the students' heads to warn them off. But some Guardsmen, wearing gas masks that made it hard to hear amid the noise and confusion, only heard or reacted to the first word of McManus' order, and fired at the students. The troops had not been trained to fire warning shots, which was contrary to National Guard regulations. And McManus had no authority to issue an order to fire if officers were nearby, as they were. Many National Guardsmen who were at Kent State on May 4 later questioned why they had been deployed there. 'Loaded rifles and fixed bayonets are pretty harsh solutions for students exercising free speech on an American campus,' one of them told an oral history interviewer. Another plaintively asked me in a 2023 interview, 'Why would you put soldiers trained to kill on a university campus to serve a police function?' Doug Guthrie, a student at Kent State in 1970, looks back 54 years later at the events of May 4, 1970. National Guard equipment and training have improved significantly in the decades since Kent State. But Guardsmen are still military troops who are fundamentally trained to fight, not to control crowds. In 2020, then-National Guard Bureau Chief General Joseph Lengyel told reporters that 'the civil unrest mission is one of the most difficult and dangerous missions … in our domestic portfolio.' In my view, the tragedy of Kent State shows how critical it is for authorities to be thoughtful in responding to protests, and extremely cautious in deploying military troops to deal with them. The application of force is inherently unpredictable, often uncontrollable, and can lead to fatal mistakes and lasting human suffering. And while protests sometimes break rules, they may not be disruptive or harmful enough to merit responding with force. Aggressive displays of force, in fact, can heighten tensions and worsen situations. Conversely, research shows that if protesters perceive that authorities are acting with restraint and treating them with respect, they are more likely to remain nonviolent. The shooting at Kent State demonstrated that using military force in these situations is an option fraught with grave risks. Brian VanDeMark is professor of history, United States Naval Academy This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
