Tectonic Shift Between Russia and the US?

The long-awaited phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump gave a start to the peace talks on Ukraine and the resumption of Russian-American contacts at the highest level. Far from being a guarantee of an end to the war, this event breaks the previous purely confrontational trend, including for Moldova    

Vladimir ROTARI, RTA: The global media space continues to buzz with news of the first telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. It is the interim achievement of intense technical contacts confirmed by both sides, which, to all appearances, started since the inauguration of the new American president, and possibly even earlier. The “background” to the leaders’ communication was the unexpected visit of Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow. As a result, the countries exchanged prisoners, thus creating a positive negotiating background. The way in which the call from the US side was organized and broadcasted has shocked EU leaders and the European media, who fail hide their disappointment. Firstly, Trump devoted a broad and vibrant post on social media to it - even too benevolent to the country with which the US has been in a state of cold war for three years. Secondly, he broke all the rules of decorum: he did not notify his allies; he ignored the previously basic principle for the West of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”; he complimented and curtsied to Putin, which was previously unacceptable. The main outcome, however, was the announcement of the launch of the peace process on Ukraine and a face-to-face meeting in the near future. Many noticed that among the key members of Trump’s negotiating team, which included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Steve Witkoff, there was no special envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg. Given the Kremlin’s wary attitude towards this official, who is considered a protégé of the “war party”, this is quite a remarkable moment and probably another gesture in Russia’s favor. Donald Trump also spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky yesterday. It looked like a created fait accompli for the Ukrainian leader about the agreements reached. It seems while the US president retains a personal tie with Putin that is surprising to many, he sees Zelensky as a wasted asset and a possible obstacle to his desired deal. Therefore, speaking to the media, Trump made several unflattering statements about the Ukrainian leader, for example, about his “low rating”. And when asked whether Kyiv would be an equal participant in the peace process, he replied that it would “have to make peace”. Yesterday is already called a “black” day in the diplomatic calendar for Ukraine. First, the new head of the Pentagon at a meeting of the Ramstein support group declared unrealistic the plans for the neighboring country to join NATO and reach the 2014 borders, and also categorically denied the possibility of sending US soldiers to Ukraine, even to participate in a peacekeeping mission. Then the US Treasury Secretary arrived in Kyiv, bringing a ready-made draft agreement on the transfer of natural resource deposits. That is, there is no discussion: Ukraine must either accept it or reject it, but the latter is fraught with obvious ramifications. A little later, Tulsi Gabbard, who was included by Kyiv in 2022 in the list of US politicians promoting “Russian propaganda” and who has a personal page on the notorious website “Mirotvorets”, was approved for the post of US Director of National Intelligence. Thus, we watch a tectonic shift in relations between Russia and the United States, which seems to be assuming responsibility for ending the Ukrainian conflict and resolving security issues, leaving Ukraine and Europe to play the role of observers. Time haven’t yet come to speak of an imminent end to the war. There are enough supporters of the continuation of hostilities in the American, European and Russian elites. The Ukrainian authorities are also reluctant to end the war, and they logically believe that in the current situation it is impossible to achieve good peace terms. Therefore, the White House and the Kremlin will have to overcome a great deal of internal and external resistance if they really want to conclude a broad peace deal. You can’t fail to notice that for our country, or rather for its ruling regime, the current international turmoil carries obvious threats. The PAS, almost from the very beginning of the war and for the next three years, looked at the world through monochrome glasses. This was convenient because from such a perspective everything was easily divided into white, black and grey. That is, there was a clearly defined circle of friends and allies - Ukraine, the USA, the EU, and enemies - Russia and Belarus. The rest of the world was seen as a ruck, un necessary “terra incognita”. The peace talks between Moscow and Washington, potential trade wars between the US and the EU, and Ukraine’s falling out as an independent actor are essentially destroying the binary picture of the world, which the ruling regime is not at all prepared for. This could lead to a rapid loss of control over the situation. The war, which for three years has been presented as a “blessed mission” against the “evil empire”, suddenly risks becoming a bargaining chip in a big game of superpowers. This is a disaster for the ruling party, which has built its external legitimacy on confrontation with Russia and tried to mobilize society around the image of an external enemy. Now Washington, which for a long time was one of the guarantors of this logic, actually recognizes Moscow as an equal partner, leaving Kyiv on the periphery. The situation is exacerbated by growing pressure from the United States, which, judging by the actions of the Trump administration, has shifted to “hard bargain” tactics. The draft agreement on the transfer of natural resources delivered by the Secretary of the Treasury to Kyiv is only the first call. In fact, Washington, taking advantage of Ukraine’s dependence on military and financial aid, is turning it into an object of bargaining, demanding concessions that seemed unthinkable just yesterday. And who can guarantee that Washington will not turn to Chisinau at some point with such a “deal”? At the same time, the European Union, which was considered an alternative pole of influence, has so far demonstrated confusion and impotence. The fragmented position of European leaders and their inability to develop a unified response to the U.S.-Russian dialogue only underscore the crisis of transatlantic solidarity. Berlin and Paris, which recently claimed to be mediators, are now forced to watch from the sidelines as Washington and Moscow reshape the European security architecture without their participation. Therefore, it is time for our leadership to reflect on the current events and make a choice: either to blindly continue the previous course, risking at some point to be behind the trends, or to start trying to fit into the new reality, carefully revising the old ideological dogmas.