Russia Seeks to Ban Game Of Thrones, Harry Potter Over ‘Childfree Ideology'
Russia is going after TV series Game of Thrones, Sex and the City, and the Harry Potter franchise in an effort to purge what it claims is the promotion of "childfree ideology."
The development comes months after Russia passed a bill banning what state-run news wires describe as the "public propaganda of the ideas of voluntarily choosing not to have children."
It comes as Russia grapples with a dwindling birth rate and as President Vladimir Putin scrambles to encourage women to have children.
For decades Russia has been experiencing a plunging birth rate and population decline, and this appears to have worsened amid the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, with high casualty rates and men fleeing the country to avoid being conscripted to fight.
It is estimated that Russia's population will fall to about 132 million in the next two decades. The United Nations has predicted that in a worst-case scenario, by the start of the next century, Russia's population could almost halve to 83 million, Newsweek previously reported.
On September 1, an order by Russia's telecommunications regulator Roskomnadzor will come into effect which will ban "childfree ideology", local media reported.
The "Parliamentary Newspaper", the official weekly publication of Russia's Federal Assembly, reported that films with so-called childfree propaganda "will not receive distribution certificates."
"Administrators of digital platforms, including social networks and online cinemas, must promptly remove illegal content," it said. "The dissemination of the ideology of conscious refusal to have children in the media, the Internet, films and advertising is prohibited in Russia."
According to the publication, content that will be banned will include information that encourages or justifies the refusal to have children, which creates a positive attitude towards it; informs [viewers] about the advantages of refusing to have children over having children or form distorted ideas about their social equivalence; demonstrates a negative image of pregnancy, motherhood, fatherhood, or create a positive attitude towards childlessness, which can motivate people to refuse to have children.
Possible contenders could include Sex and the City, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, and Harry Potter.
"Even in the harmless Harry Potter saga, as it seems to us, one can find a hint of childfree [ideology]: Professor McGonagall did not have children. However, it is unknown whether this was a conscious choice or something did not work out," the publication said.
A leading Russian demographer said last month that Russia's birth rate has fallen to a historic low, reaching levels not seen since the late 18th to early 19th century.
Russian authorities have restricted access to abortions and contraception and have even offered pregnant women payouts in a bid to encourage the population to have children. In 2023, Valery Seleznyov, a member of the Russian State Duma, proposed releasing women convicted of minor charges from prisons so they can conceive.
State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, a member of the Russia's ruling United Russia party, said when the bill passed in September 2024: "Without children, there will be no country."
The press service of the United Russia party said in September 2024: "The bill banning propaganda of childfree [ideology] was submitted to the State Duma."
Elvira Aitkulova, one of the authors of the bill and member of the State Duma Committee on education, previously said that the bill is "about the propaganda of childfree ideology, but not about the lifestyle and choices of each individual."
Individuals who violate the ban face fines of up to 400,000 rubles (about $5,000), while officials could be fined up to 800,000 rubles (about $10,000). Companies could be slapped with fines of up to 5 million rubles (about $62,300).
Related Articles
Putin's Trump Card in UkraineRussia Detains US Ally's Ship in NATO LakeRussian TV Mocks Trump's Peace Plan: 'Which One of Them?'Romanian Exit Polls Show Clear Winner as Rival Declares Victory
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
EXCLUSIVE: Women Allegedly Filmed Nude By Guards While in Prison Speak Out
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Women who were allegedly recorded during strip searches by prison guards' body cameras told Newsweek in exclusive interviews that the mental and emotional aftermath has led to fear, anger, and the feeling of being less than human. Six women in a Michigan correctional facility spoke for the first time with Newsweek, detailing the impact that purported nude strip searches beginning in January had on their psyche. They are among around 675 female inmates (as of June 3) of an approximate total prison population of 1,800 at Michigan's only women's prison, Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility (WHV) in Ypsilanti, suing Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) officials in a $500 million lawsuit alleging that prison guards recorded body camera footage of naked women at a detention facility. Attorneys from Detroit-based Flood Law are representing the plaintiffs, claiming that guards' actions constitute a felony as a violation of a Michigan law (MCL 750.539j) in addition to violating other fundamental constitutional rights. A policy directive was issued by MDOC on March 24 of this year, saying, "Employees issued a body-worn camera (BWC) as part of their job duties shall adhere to the guidelines set forth in this policy directive." Michigan is currently the only state that has a policy to videotape strip searches. Litigators point to language stated within the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which outlines MDOC's "zero-tolerance standard toward all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment involving prisoners." A clause within PREA alludes directly to voyeurism, which states: "An invasion of privacy of a prisoner by an employee for reasons unrelated to official duties, such as peering at a prisoner who is using a toilet in their cell to perform bodily functions; requiring a prisoner to expose their buttocks, genitals, or breasts; or taking images of all or part of a prisoner's naked body or of a prisoner performing bodily functions." The PREA policy also includes the following language, underlined within: "The Department has zero tolerance for sexual abuse and sexual harassment of prisoners." Newsweek did not receive responses to multiple inquiries sent to Whitmer's office and the Michigan Department of Corrections. A spokesperson for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel told Newsweek that the department's involvement would only be to provide legal representation for the State of Michigan defendants named on the lawsuit, deferring comment to those individuals. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva 'Humiliating And Demeaning' Lori Towle, 58, has been incarcerated for 22 years and never quite experienced anything like she did with the body cam recordings. Towle, who is serving life for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, told Newsweek that the effect on her was "immediate." She reported asking guards, consisting of males and females, many questions and expressed her discomfort with the policy itself. Guards purportedly told her it was the department's policy and that if she had an issue, she had to take it up with the captain. "Oh, I grieved it," Towle said. "The first officer that stripped me on camera also told me that I was lucky that she wasn't making me spread my vagina apart and letting her look in there." Tashiena Combs-Holbrook, 49, is in her 26th year of incarceration. She's serving life for first-degree murder. Her conviction has been in the Oakland County Prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit for more than three years. Combs-Holbrook told Newsweek that she's done basically every job behind bars she could, from cleaning toilets to mentoring to working in the law library. She had heard rumors about strip searches being recorded but then experienced it herself in January. "For me, it just escalated the already problematic procedure of strip searches in general," she said. "The strip searches here are extremely humiliating and demeaning and horrifying, and the fact that they started recording them just made it even worse. "I think that actually the day that they told us that the cameras were actually going to be in use, I had a visit ,and I had it canceled because just the thought of having to be strip-searched is already horrific enough—and then to be recorded just took it over the top." That was a sentiment shared by LaToya Joplin, who is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. The 47-year-old has been in prison for 18 years, 17 of which have been spent as a chaplain. She's also been working as an observation aide for 12 years, helping individuals with suicidal ideations. "I felt degraded, I felt humiliated, and I felt embarrassed as a woman," Joplin told Newsweek of being recorded in the shower, the first such instance she's ever been recorded behind bars. The mental and emotional anguish have contributed towards a more defensive posture, she said, that includes not even wanting to go to work anymore because she's "scared of the unknown" and whether recordings of her and other women will reach the wrong hands. Recordings have made Paula Bennett, 35, wary of continuing to visit with family members—something she's taken advantage of to the fullest in her 17 years in prison. After hearing rumors around the facility of body cam recordings, she thought it was just hearsay. Then, one day prior to a scheduled visit, she was strip-searched by a female lieutenant who allegedly told Bennett that it was just a "passive recording" and that only certain people could access the footage. Bennett told Newsweek she began canceling visits due to not wanting to submit herself to the recorded searches. That included seeing her father, who has Alzheimer's and has visited her twice a week for the entire duration of her prison stint. "It was really hard to choose between not wanting to be recorded naked and seeing my father. ... I just came to the conclusion that I couldn't be giving up time that my dad needed," Bennett said. "So, I did go on a visit and was super upset as soon as I walked into the visiting room. I was crying to [my family] because I knew at the end what was going to happen. "And when I got to the end of the visit that day, the officer's body camera battery had died. So, I didn't get recorded. I remember feeling like I had just won the lottery." Bennett is serving life for first-degree murder after she aided and abetted her boyfriend, resulting in a mandatory life sentence. But she will be resentenced due to being a juvenile when the crime was committed. Another prisoner, 50, requested anonymity and will be referred to as Jane Doe. She's been imprisoned 31 years, serving life for first-degree murder; however, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that her sentence is unconstitutional. She will be going back for resentencing in Wayne County. Jane Doe initially asked guards if they could turn off their records, to which they declined due to policy. She wondered why inmates were even being recorded, who was going to observe the footage, and feared the footage being "hacked" and obtained by outside parties. The dental technician who makes dentures for inmates statewide has the highest clearance of any prison job, she said, and it requires walking through a metal detector before the searches take place. "I work four days a week, so we have to be strip-searched every day," she told Newsweek. "I would say [I've been recorded] about 75 to 90 times. You literally disassociate. That's the only way that I can be able to get through it because you end up breaking down in prison. One [search] is hard enough to take the abuse that we that we're subjected to." Baby Born In Front of Cameras The experience for 21-year-old inmate Natalie Larson was a different type of traumatic: On March 6, she gave birth to a son in front of multiple guards who recorded the event. Larson has been in prison for about one year and is serving two to 15 years for creation/delivery of an analogue-controlled substance. She told Newsweek that she entered prison pregnant and understood it would be different than the births of her first two children. She just didn't realize that the entire delivery would be etched in footage handled by MDOC officers, one male and one female. Natalie Larson, inmate. Natalie Larson, inmate. Larson's mother "What was supposed to be one of the most sacred and happiest moments of my life was completely taken from me by a corrections officer and their body camera," Larson said. "I felt extremely humiliated and degraded. I was ashamed that I even had to experience that. ... It was just very inhumane to me. They had no decency or respect for the fact that I had just given birth to my child." The male officer was a bit further away from her, while the female officer "was literally within arm's length" and sitting near her mother. To add insult to injury, Larson said she received less than 48 hours with her new child. As someone who said she's experienced a lot of trauma in her life, she said this was arguably the worst incident to endure. Due to her delivery, which was one of three births in prison that were recorded, Larson said she doesn't really like to leave the housing unit anymore. She's also declined to look into higher-paying job opportunities due to the high frequency of strip searches. "I feel like they should take away the body cameras," she said. "There's cameras all over the prison that have audio, video. I don't really see the need for the body cameras. And it's not only like they're just recording strip searches; they're recording us in the bathroom, us in the shower. "We have very little privacy in this prison as it is, and for them to be recording us in a state of undress like that is just absurd to me." Fears of Retaliation Of the women who spoke with Newsweek, the majority are victims of previous sexual violence. All expressed their concerns, one way or another, to different officials within the facility, all the way up to the warden. Some guards were receptive to their concerns and iterated it's just a requirement of their jobs, while others have been claimed to be more power-hungry and use the cameras to intimidate. "A lot of them were pretty cocky," Towle said. "They were like, 'Don't tell me about it, take it to the captain. Nothing I can do about it.' But I believe that everybody has a choice because there were some officers that turned to the side and the camera was not faced at us." Bennett, who has also been recorded multiple times, said she tried raising concerns to a female officer with whom she's developed a positive rapport. But when she tried to explain, from one woman to another how she felt, the officer "had no empathy whatsoever." "It deters us from even like having visits with our own families," she said. "It's something that affects us every single day. You're having non-confrontational regular encounters with staff and they're directing their bodies at you. ... It's like they're trying to create a hostile environment." 'We're Still Human Beings' Colmes-Holbrook said that from 2000 to 2009, she followed procedure because she wanted to be a model inmate. She said that in 2009, an MDOC officer asked her to scoot to the edge of a chair, put her legs in the air, and touch her heels together. She then had to place her hands around her buttocks and spread her labia for a search. Now, with the recordings and her own track record of never being accused or in possession of contraband, she feels the prison is in a new era of violation—even though she knows the resilience of her fellow inmates. "What it has done to my mental health, to the autonomy of my body, is something that I take very seriously," she said. "I've experienced not only sexual abuse; I've experienced various forms of domestic violence. I take it very seriously to be able to say 'yes' and 'no' when I mean 'yes' and when I mean 'no.' Jane Doe, who was sexually assaulted by two male guards at a previous facility also in Michigan, said she and the other plaintiffs who've signed onto this litigation are doing so because they know it's a violation of the department's own policies. "You can't commit voyeurism," she said. "If you're watching it and you're putting it on camera, that's the epitome of voyeurism. And so if you're violating your own policy, why would we not challenge it?" "To protect us, that's what they're supposed to do," she added. "And they weren't protecting us. We're all trying to help as much as we can [with the lawsuit] because we're trying to help ourselves." Towle felt oppressed and then depressed from her being recorded. She said it "triggered" her past history of being sexually abused. "We're still human beings, whether we're in prison or not," Towle said. "It seems like a lot of people don't consider us to be human beings. If you become incarcerated, but once you walk out the door, then you're a human being again. "It just doesn't make sense to me that we are not given the respect as other human beings, and what really gets me is that it was other females doing this to us. This was intentional. This is not professional. They planned this out and they did this to us."
Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Welcome to the Age of Dumb Kissinger
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. For all his controversies, Henry Kissinger, who would have turned 102 last month, was a master strategist. His vision of realpolitik—rooted in cold calculation, balance of power, and pragmatic diplomacy—helped shape global politics for decades. His legacy is instructive—and not just because Marco Rubio is the first person to serve simultaneously as secretary of State and national security advisor since Kissinger. President Donald Trump has stripped down and distorted the lessons of the late statesman into a crude, transactional, impulsive worldview that mistakes bluffing for strength and coercion for strategy. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty Welcome to the Age of Dumb Kissinger, where Washington is undermining its leverage, weakening alliances, and emboldening adversaries. Kissinger understood that power isn't just about threats—it's about credibility, relationships, and patience. Trump's transactional instincts betray an obsession with performative actions regardless of long-term costs. Kissinger believed that power stemmed from a combination of economic strength, diplomatic influence, national self-interests, and military deterrence—but most importantly, the perception of resolve and strategic consistency. Trump's version of power, however, is modeled on a shallow and superficial grasp of the bar takeover in Goodfellas—all chest-puffing bravado, but without the discipline, foresight, or grasp of power dynamics that true grand strategy requires. In repeatedly weakening the coalitions that sustain American influence, Trump has demonstrated that he fundamentally misunderstands the sources of American power. His public skepticism of our NATO treaty commitments, at least unless allies pay more, ignores the alliance's strategic value as a bulwark against Russian expansionism and source for democratic resilience. His efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into making concessions, while credulously accepting Russian President Vladimir Putin's lies and manipulations has not only undercut Kyiv's fight against Russian aggression but also signaled to Moscow that U.S. support for Europe is transactional and unreliable—a message Beijing appears to be taking away about Taiwan as well. Trump can oscillate between impatience with Putin, even threatening Russia with sanctions coordinated with Europe, and backtracking after Putin makes just a marginal counteroffer in bad faith. Trump can be quick in throwing his fellow European leaders under the bus. Why? For no other reason than being entranced by Putin's lies and flirtations. This is a sign of profound weakness, damaging to our nation's credibility, and, on the other side of the world, showing Chinese President Xi Jinping exactly who he's dealing with in Washington—a president prone to endless temper tantrums, whose mind can be changed in the last minute, sometimes with as little as a vague public statement, with no higher strategic thought than that. Similarly, Trump's erratic behavior toward key economic partners further reflects his shallow grasp of power dynamics. His repeated tariff threats against Canada—a cornerstone of North American economic might—and bizarre musings about Greenland reveal a mindset that conflates economic leverage with diplomatic strategy. And in perhaps the one instance where a much tougher stance on trade would engender broader public and even allies and partners' support—China—Trump has made it remarkably clear that his actions are driven by his feelings rather than solid, long-term policy planning to bring jobs and industry back to the United States. A strategic approach would have consulted and coordinated with like-minded countries, especially in Europe and Japan, to put Beijing on notice about its beggar thy neighbors practices—such as overcapacities that erode others' industrial base. But instead he went on his own, slapping a 145 percent rate on Beijing, convinced that it would bring China to the table to make concessions, only to back down later—generating "TACO" ("Trump always chickens out") headlines that describe his tariff hammer as less mighty than he claims because, very narrowly and without regard to the larger national interest, it would hurt his own base. Taking America Off Center Perhaps where Dumb Kissinger rings most true is in Trump's inability to understand Kissinger's ultimate goal: that maintaining a stable balance of power was consistent with our interests. Kissinger knew that stability required a web of relationships where each great power balanced the others—and where Washington operated as the fulcrum around which the system pivoted. Trump's foreign policy, however, leans on disruption rather than order. Kissinger's diplomacy excelled because he understood the value of predictability—that rivals must understand the limits of your ambition and the consequences of crossing redlines. Trump, however, mistakes unpredictability for strength and chaos for leverage. His admiration for strong men mirrors a mafioso-style belief in dominance and intimidation, rather than the calculated balance Kissinger sought. The legacy of Dumb Kissinger diplomacy is a world less stable and certain of American leadership. By misunderstanding the foundations of power, Trump is squandering U.S. influence. By misapplying coercion without strategy, he is inflaming conflicts rather than resolving them. And by failing to understand the delicate balance that Kissinger worked to maintain, Trump is making America's rivals stronger and its allies more vulnerable. Kissinger's realpolitik may have had its flaws—often ruthless and always morally ambiguous— but it was grounded in a coherent understanding of power and diplomacy. Trump's misunderstanding of the lessons of this approach have resulted in a foreign policy that is simple, crude, and ineffective. Trump is showing what happens when realpolitik is reduced to mere transactionalism—and where spectacle outweighs strategy. So welcome to the Age of Dumb Kissinger—a world of bluster without balance, power without purpose, and chaos without control. Michael Schiffer served as assistant administrator for Asia at USAID in the Biden administration, senior advisor and counselor at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and prior to that, at the Department of Defense in the Obama administration. Anka Lee served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia at the Pentagon and led China policy and strategy at USAID in the Biden administration. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
What Trump Doesn't Understand About Putin
Russian leader Vladimir Putin looks increasingly cornered. The Ukrainians just staged a stunning drone attack on strategic bombers in far-flung Russian air bases. Putin's battered troops are struggling to gain significant territory in Ukraine, and the frontline has barely shifted in two years. His economy is a mixed bag, with inflation slowing growth and other danger signs flashing. President Donald Trump, who has long admired Putin's brash leadership style, is now questioning the Russian leader's sanity and urging him to 'STOP!' his attacks on Ukraine. And U.S. lawmakers are mulling a heavy new sanctions and tariffs package aimed at Moscow — the type one senator describes as 'bone-crushing.' Given all these challenges, why won't Putin abandon his goal of conquering Ukraine? I have been asking former U.S. officials versions of this question in recent days. Finally, I realized it's the wrong question — and the wrong way to think about this whole war. Putin will never abandon his ambition of conquering Ukraine, and convincing him to do so shouldn't be the aim of Ukraine's global supporters. Instead, the goal should be to make it impossible for Putin to fulfill that ambition. In simpler terms: You can't make Putin walk away from Ukraine; you have to put Ukraine out of his reach. Trump and some of his top aides do not seem to understand this about Putin. They've sent mixed signals about their views of Russia's strongman, with Trump acting as if the carrots of economic deals and Truth Social posts can sway him. With new sanctions on the table, many Russia watchers hope Trump will seize the moment to show Putin that even if he can't control his ambitions, he can make it too painful for Putin to achieve them. But those same analysts warned that new sanctions alone won't make Putin back down. Neither will continued military aid to Ukraine, nor tough-talking posts on social media. Showing Putin that he absolutely cannot subsume Ukraine will require all these tactics and more. It will also require patience. 'That's why you do these missions, like Ukraine taking out some of their strategic bombers. That hurts. It's expensive,' said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former U.S. intelligence official. 'Can we impose enough costs that he eventually says, 'I cannot do this indefinitely?'' I'm not the first person to posit that Putin will never change his belief that Ukraine belongs to Russia. Putin's own writings make clear that he's convinced Kyiv must be under Russia's thumb if Moscow wants to achieve new heights on the global stage. Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggested Putin's view is 'theological.' One analyst has argued that the West's best strategy on the war may require waiting until Putin dies. A White House official, in response to a request for comment from the administration, told me Trump 'has always been tough on Putin.' The official, whom was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic issues, added: 'This president's foreign policy is unique in that he can be tough on our adversaries, but he is simultaneously able to look anyone in the eye to try to deliver peace.' But many of Trump's words and actions indicate that he has limited appreciation for how hard-core Putin is about pursuing Ukraine. During the campaign, Trump declared numerous times that he could end the war in his first 24 hours back in office — a claim that he now says was in jest but which nonetheless cast Putin as easy to persuade. In the months since, the president has seemed bewildered that Putin isn't easing up on Ukraine. Trump recently said, with a tone of surprise, that the Russian leader has gone 'absolutely CRAZY.' Trump also seems frustrated with Putin's lack of seriousness in ceasefire talks. The tough talk from Trump is striking given his past efforts to win Putin over. But his methods are not always consistent. Trump came across as passive in a social media post Wednesday after speaking to Putin, saying the Russian made it clear he'd have to retaliate against the Ukraine drone strikes. 'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,' Trump wrote, not saying if he'd urged Putin to avoid escalation. Comments and moves by others in the administration also suggest a lack of clarity about the Kremlin boss, who first invaded Ukraine more than a decade ago. Vice President JD Vance's dismissal of Ukrainian concerns that Putin will not uphold a peace deal — most famously in that awkward Oval Office meeting in February with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — indicates that he doesn't fully grasp the depth of Putin's desires. It also likely boosted Russian confidence that its efforts to drive wedges between Washington and its allies, including Ukraine and the European Union, are working. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's assertion that the United States may simply walk away from trying to resolve the crisis didn't exactly help Kyiv, either. It suggests the U.S. lacks patience and that the Russians should forge ahead in seeking a decisive edge in the war. And if there's one thing Putin believes he has on his side, it's time. What exactly is Putin's breaking point, or the point at which he'll give up on taking over Ukraine? 'This kind of stuff — it's very hard to quantify. It's the psychology of one man,' Eddie Fishman, a former State Department official who dealt with Russia sanctions, told me. Some of these Russia specialists said Putin is likely aware of the concept of 'TACO Trump' — the 'Trump Always Chickens Out' notion that's swept Wall Street and other realms. Trump's policy inconsistency and his frequent backtracking, such as on tariffs, may suggest to Putin that the U.S. president will try to drive a hard bargain but ultimately cave, giving Moscow wiggle room. The sanctions bill is a test of sorts for Trump and whether he truly understands Putin's mindset. It has garnered support from the majority of U.S. senators and includes harsh provisions aimed at choking off Russia's last major source of income: its energy exports. The legislation would impose 500 percent tariffs on countries that continue buying Russian oil, gas, uranium and other materials. It's questionable whether the 500 percent figure will survive talks between the White House and Capitol Hill. The tariffs would land on major U.S. trading partners in Europe, China and India and wreak havoc on the global economy. Still, whatever version of the bill survives could deal a major blow to Russia. If Trump signs the bill, the Kremlin should worry because it will mean he's not afraid to escalate things with Moscow. But if he signs the bill and then delays, waives or otherwise doesn't enforce the sanctions and tariffs involved, Putin will believe Trump is backing down yet again and that he can take advantage of the American leader's capriciousness. If Trump also fails to take other meaningful steps to help Ukraine, especially on the military aid front, it could further boost Putin's confidence that he and his troops can ultimately overpower Kyiv. Of course, the Kremlin chief could still agree to peace talks — he already has, in a way, though he tends to send powerless underlings to the sessions in his place. Those motions seem to be about buying time with Trump, a self-styled dealmaking expert who is eager for a compromise. Even if Putin agrees to a sustained ceasefire or other type of pause in the fighting, Russia analysts I spoke to believe he'll use the downtime to regroup and eventually make another move against Kyiv. One Trump tactic unlikely to work on Putin is promising him economic deals, should he come to terms with Ukraine. To be fair, Putin himself has raised this prospect in a bid to get sanctions relief from Trump, who largely sees the world through a business lens. The reality is that the Russian economy has been transformed since the February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is now heavily fueled by the war itself. There are signs that this cannot go on forever, but it has continued longer than many Western officials and analysts predicted. Putin is also likely aware that even if Trump were to lift all U.S. sanctions on Russia, American businesses are unlikely to jump into the Russian market anytime soon. There are too many risks, including the possibility that a future U.S. president could reimpose the sanctions. Besides, European sanctions are likely to remain in place. 'Given sanctions and export controls that need to be lifted, not to mention the reputational risk and the operating environment in Russia, it's hard to see that Western companies would be rushing to go back to that market,' Randi Levinas, a former chief operating officer of the now-dissolved U.S.-Russia Business Council, told me. Putin is in a corner. But while everyone is watching him, he's still got his eye on Ukraine — all of Ukraine.
