logo
Putin Isn't Actually Enjoying This

Putin Isn't Actually Enjoying This

Yahoo3 hours ago

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Within weeks of Donald Trump's second inauguration, pundits began saying that his return to office opened new doors for Vladimir Putin, offering Moscow opportunities it hadn't seen in years. The deference the new administration afforded the Kremlin appeared to be rivaled only by its hostility toward its own national-security establishment.
Trump entered negotiations to end the war in Ukraine by presenting Putin with a bouquet of inexplicable concessions. Washington ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine—then proposed that it might recognize the illegally occupied Crimean peninsula as Russian (in a reversal of long-standing U.S. policy), allow Russia to retain most of the territory it had seized since 2022, and lift sanctions. The U.S. even sided against its European allies when they presented a resolution at the United Nations condemning Moscow—and then it drafted a peace proposal that omitted any criticism of Russia.
You'd think Putin would be delighted by all of this. Instead, he's been thrown on his heels. Trump's efforts at rapprochement have left Russia's propaganda apparatus, foreign policy, and economic stability in worse shape than they were before January 20.
Whatever the intent, Washington has robbed the Kremlin of its north star: opposition to the United States. After years of routinely threatening to drown the Eastern Seaboard, Moscow can no longer afford the luxury of calling America its enemy No. 1. Thanks to Trump, the Kremlin now has to portray Washington as a rational negotiating partner—even as American-made missiles continue to rain down on Russian troops. The title of Russia's civilizational enemy has been reassigned to the European Union. The Russian propaganda machine has some flexibility, but being locked in an existential struggle with the Netherlands is far less flattering to the imperial mindset than going up against the world's leading superpower.
And so Russia's information mills seem to be glitching out. In a May 25 Truth Social post, Trump wrote that Putin was absolutely 'CRAZY' for bombing Ukrainian cities in the middle of negotiations. 'We are really grateful to the Americans and to President Trump personally,' Putin's spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in response. The last time I scanned Russia's top propaganda sites, I couldn't find a single hostile reference to the United States. On May 20, Konstantin Kosachev, the deputy speaker of the Russian senate, described two emerging camps: a 'Russian American' one 'discussing prospects for achieving peace,' and a 'Ukrainian European' one 'exploring options for continuing the war.'
The reversal isn't just a problem for Putin's media proxies. The Russian leader himself has been forced to improvise. For years, Putin claimed that direct talks with Ukraine were impossible because President Volodymyr Zelensky's government was illegitimate and, more important, Ukraine wasn't a real country—merely a proxy for the American imperial project. He framed the war as a conflict that only Russia and the U.S. could resolve, in a Yalta-style deal between great powers—preferably in occupied Yalta itself. Along came Trump, who repeatedly sidelined Ukraine and the EU to speak with Putin one-on-one. Putin looked set to get what he wanted. But then that changed, as all things Trump tend to do: By May, Putin wasn't carving up Europe with Trump—he was competing with Zelensky to convince the White House that the other side was out of control.
Trump's point man for Russia is the billionaire real-estate developer Steve Witkoff, whose bewilderingly affectionate approach to Putin continues to flummox the Western media. His meetings with the Russian dictator last for hours. He forgoes American translators (relying instead on Russian intelligence assets), sits alone with top Kremlin negotiators, and emerges voicing Moscow's talking points without even being able to name the Ukrainian regions Russia claims as its own. Even seasoned diplomats have to resist being crushed by Russia's imperial grandeur when they are received like state dignitaries inside the Kremlin complex. Someone who devoted his life to building condos barely stands a chance. Still, the Kremlin surely knows that Witkoff has no authority over what America can offer Russia. Only Trump does. For now, the man trying to rebuild the Russian empire is forced to negotiate with the king of Manhattan real estate.
And negotiate he must, because Trump has made forging a settlement between Russia and Ukraine a defining foreign-policy objective. The goal is an elusive one: Washington has so far failed to secure even a 30-day cease-fire. On May 1, the administration threatened to withdraw from the peace talks. Many in the West expected that this would translate into a win for the Kremlin: Trump, they assumed, would abandon Ukraine and strike a separate deal with Moscow. But Russia has reason to be wary that a thwarted Trump administration might not prove so amenable. The U.S. president apparently wants a diplomatic victory, and if he feels that he's been pushed aside, he may have less reason to end arms shipments to Ukraine—especially now that Kyiv is purchasing munitions—and more reason to blame Moscow for sabotaging the peace process.
For the Kremlin, standing between Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize is risky, but agreeing to a cease-fire while Russia is making steady, if incremental, gains on the battlefield is a step too far. So it opted for a third path: Putin held a rare late-night press conference inviting Ukraine to bilateral negotiations, dodging the cease-fire while handing Trump a symbolic win that he could sell as a breakthrough. For the Russian dictator, whose foreign and domestic policy is shaped by Brioni-clad men playing by prison-yard rules, the need to appease the U.S. president in this way is a distinctly uncomfortable—and demeaning—shift from the predictable antagonism of the Joe Biden years.
Trump frequently holds out the prospect of lifting sanctions or striking lucrative deals as incentives for Moscow to end the war. Russia was even spared from Trump's sweeping tariffs. But what the U.S. can offer Russia is ultimately underwhelming. The sanctions that hurt Russia the most—an oil-export ban, the freezing of two-thirds of its foreign reserves, and its exclusion from the SWIFT bank-to-bank payment network—all came from the EU. Russian exports to the United States were at their peak in 2011—before the annexation of Crimea, the full-scale war in Ukraine, and the U.S. energy boom—and amounted to just $34.6 billion worth of goods. That figure offers little hope for meaningful bilateral trade, especially now.
What does matter to Russia is oil sales. And in the months before the renewed conflict between Israel and Iran, oil prices dropped by 20 percent, largely because of the Trump administration's global tariff war. This forced Moscow to revise its federal budget for 2025–26; triple this year's expected budget deficit, from 0.5 to 1.7 percent of GDP; and, as a result, tap its fiscal reserves for $5.51 billion, or about one-tenth of its liquid assets, to balance the budget. It also cost Russia $39 billion in anticipated hydrocarbon revenue—more than the proposed deals with the U.S. could make up for. In other words, without imposing a single new sanction, Trump has significantly intensified fiscal pressure on the Kremlin simply by dint of his erratic economic policies.
Washington's public stance on Russia has certainly changed. One popularly circulated YouTube clip shows Secretary of State Marco Rubio refusing to call Putin a war criminal during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on May 21. But as someone who once worked with the Kremlin (I produced a talk show for Russian state media in the late 2000s), I can assure you: Putin would much rather be labeled a war criminal with oil at $70 a barrel than a rational leader looking to end the war with oil at $56.
During the first three years of Russia's all-out war in Ukraine, the United States and the EU presented a united front against Russia that proved, perhaps paradoxically, manageable for the Kremlin, in terms of both propaganda and strategic positioning. Trump has shattered that coherence, and now the Kremlin finds itself in an uncomfortable position, despite its triumphalist rhetoric and maximalist demands: It's scrambling to keep pace with an American president who has no idea where he's going.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump, Iran and the Specter of Iraq: ‘We Bought All the Happy Talk'
Trump, Iran and the Specter of Iraq: ‘We Bought All the Happy Talk'

New York Times

time22 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Trump, Iran and the Specter of Iraq: ‘We Bought All the Happy Talk'

A little more than 22 years ago, Washington was on edge as a president stood on the precipice of ordering an invasion of Baghdad. The expectation was that it would be a quick, triumphant 'mission accomplished.' By the time the United States withdrew nearly nine years and more than 4,000 American deaths later, the Iraq war had become a historic lesson of miscalculation and unintended consequences. The specter of Iraq now hangs over a deeply divided, anxious Washington. President Trump, who campaigned against America's 'forever wars,' is pondering a swift deployment of American military might in Iran. This time there are not some 200,000 American troops massed in the Middle East, or antiwar demonstrations around the world. But the sense of dread and the unknown feels in many ways the same. 'So much of this is the same story told again,' said Vali R. Nasr, an Iranian American who is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 'Once upon a time we didn't know better, and we bought all the happy talk about Iraq. But every single assumption proved wrong.' There are many similarities. The Bush administration and its allies saw the invasion of Iraq as a 'cakewalk' and promised that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. There were internal disputes over the intelligence that justified the war. A phalanx of neoconservatives pushed hard for the chance to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the longtime dictator of Iraq. And America held its breath waiting for President George W. Bush to announce a final decision. Today Trump allies argue that coming to the aid of Israel by dropping 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, Iran's most fortified nuclear site, could be a one-off event that would transform the Middle East. There is a dispute over intelligence between Tulsi Gabbard, Mr. Trump's director of national intelligence, who said in March that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, and Mr. Trump, who retorted on Tuesday that 'I don't care what she said.' Iran, he added, was in fact close to a nuclear weapon. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Keep the focus on stopping Iran's nukes — ‘regime change' is too risky a game
Keep the focus on stopping Iran's nukes — ‘regime change' is too risky a game

New York Post

time24 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Keep the focus on stopping Iran's nukes — ‘regime change' is too risky a game

Regime change in Iran may wind up happening as a result of the current conflict, but it's absolutely to be avoided as a goal. In particular, don't let Israel's difficulties in completely destroying Tehran's nuclear program lead to mission creep or any moving of the goalposts — even though the central problem is the ayatollahs who'd have their fingers on the buttons. No civilized human of good will would shed a tear for the Islamic Republic, but Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have shown the perils of ousting an entire regime without clear, practical ideas for what comes next — and that our ability to steer another country's course is extremely limited. Trying to impose the shah's heir, or any group of exiles, as a new government seems guaranteed to fail, as Washington doesn't know enough (or can't make effective use of what it does know) to pull off some miraculous coup. President Donald Trump certainly won't be sending in US ground troops, nor will any Western nation so intervene; it's hard to see even any of Iran's neighbors taking that risk (though some might aim to bite off some bits of territory). Yet keeping reasonable order in Iran has to be a priority for the rest of the world: It's not only a major oil and gas exporter in its own right, it's positioned to shut off the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the planet's energy now passes. Serious disorder in Iran, such as a civil war, risks destabilizing (among others) Iraq, Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan — none of which is completely stable now. Meanwhile, Moscow and (especially) Beijing would be looking to guard their own interests, and spread their influence — more bad news for the West. All of this argues for Washington doing what it can to prevent the conflict from creating a total power vacuum in Tehran. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Israel has every right and military need to keep knocking out the regime's missile capabilities, its top generals and so on; eviscerating the Republican Guard is beyond legit — but leaving Iran with enough civic skeleton for some new interim government to rapidly form seems a must. Oddly enough, this is an added argument for Washington joining Israel's campaign as far as dropping those bunker-busters on the Fordow nuke site: Taking out Tehran's nuclear program is the overriding goal here; getting the job finished fast may be the best way to limit the damage to the rest of the country. Yet it's also a reason for Iran's current rulers to give in and give up on their nuclear dreams: The risk they'll be ousted grows every day the bombing continues. Trump's instincts are solid so far: Iran can't go nuclear, but America won't get bogged down in another forever war; Israel's campaign needs to end successfully and rapidly. Regime change must be left to Iran's own people; trying to impose it from outside is a fool's game.

President Trump's plan to "wean off" FEMA doesn't resonate with some N.J. residents still recovering from hurricanes
President Trump's plan to "wean off" FEMA doesn't resonate with some N.J. residents still recovering from hurricanes

CBS News

time28 minutes ago

  • CBS News

President Trump's plan to "wean off" FEMA doesn't resonate with some N.J. residents still recovering from hurricanes

President Trump said recently he wants to move toward getting rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA, and get states to take on responsibilities. But some disaster survivors in New Jersey and an organization that helps them are not in favor of the idea. "The FEMA thing hasn't been a very successful experiment" Mr. Trump said June 10 the plan is to "wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level, a little bit like education. We're moving it back to the states." The president said he wants that to start after hurricane season and for governors to lead the way. "Now, if they can't handle it, they shouldn't be governor. But these governors can handle it," Mr. Trump said. "The FEMA thing hasn't been a very successful experiment. [It's] very, very expensive and it doesn't get the job done." The president said once this all comes together, it will be good for the country. CBS News New York reached out to the local FEMA office, but it said it could not comment. We also tried to get comment from the national office, but have not heard back. Some N.J. residents sound off on Trump's FEMA stance Nearly four years after Hurricane Ida damaged her Milford home, Leanna Jones is still waiting for state help. "I still haven't gotten my money from the state to do the long-term recovery," Jones said. Jones said despite FEMA's imperfections, the agency was there for her right after disaster struck. "They did put $4,000 in my pocket right away, even before my insurance company came to do the first inspections," Jones said. That's why she says she's worried about what the president is saying about FEMA. "If everything is handed to the states, then people will be waiting for four years to get any money. That is just not okay," Jones said. Organizations helping Superstorm Sandy and Ida survivors also don't think it's a good idea. In recent recommendations to the FEMA Review Council, both the New Jersey Resource Project and New Jersey Organizing Project suggested more FEMA aid and less denial rates, adding, "None of our recommendations included dismantling FEMA. Rather, we have specific suggestions on how FEMA can be improved and provide continued benefit to impacted communities."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store