Nadia Banchik ‒ US correspondent for “Hromada”
The first round of telephone talks between US President Donald Trump and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin (March 18) and between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (March 19) did not result in even a partial ceasefire. Have they agreed to negotiate further? On what and why?
Putin is playing Trump as his “trump card”
President Donald Trump (a strange coincidence: trump means “trump card”), who has created an image of a master of business deals, has made one of his most important election promises dependent on the master of special psychological operations, the KGB-FSB. By promising to stop, in his words, “horrific murders,” deliberately refusing to distinguish between aggressor and victim, he seemed to be hoping to appease the evil dictator and aggressor. How the master of business deals appeased the master of provocations can only be guessed from some of the information about this conversation.
When I searched for an official announcement of the official phone call with Putin on the White House’s official website while writing this article (March 21-22), I did not find it. Neither by looking through the “News” section chronologically, nor by using the Internet search “Trump – Putin phone call”. There is a press release about the conversation with Zelenskyy, but there is no press release about the conversation with Putin!
Doesn’t this lack of an official press release indicate that Trump himself considers these talks to be not as “great” as he initially thought?
On the Russian dictator’s official website, everything is in order: the message about the conversation with Trump is in its chronological place. With all the “detailed and sincere exchange of views,” “commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict” and, of course, the need to get rid of the “root causes of the crisis” and to take into account “Russia’s legitimate security interests.”
Of course, Putin pointed to the “serious risks associated with the inability to reach an agreement with the ‘Kyiv regime’” that has already “repeatedly sabotaged and violated the agreements reached” (when was this? And who violated the Minsk agreements, which were deliberately ambiguous to trap the Ukrainian side? Didn’t the then-newly elected President Zelenskyy unilaterally order the fulfillment of these agreements by withdrawing troops in four sections of the then-current contact line, which subsequently facilitated the full-scale invasion and partial seizure of southern Ukraine?)
“Attention is drawn to the barbaric crimes of a terrorist nature committed by Ukrainian militants against the civilian population of the Kursk region” (probably confused with Bucha, where it was not ‘Ukrainian militants’ who committed unheard-of crimes?).
“It was emphasized that a key condition for preventing the escalation of the conflict and working towards its resolution through political and diplomatic means should be a complete cessation of foreign military assistance and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv” – but not a word about the obligation to cut off supplies to Russia from North Korea, Iran and China.
However, the most important aspect of the talks, in my opinion, seems to be the short, unspoken notes (sorry for the long quote, but in my opinion, this is where the main risks, if not dangers, for the United States and the world order lie):
Putin and Trump “touched upon other issues on the international agenda, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. They will make joint efforts to stabilize the situation in crisis areas, establish cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security. This, in turn, will help improve the overall atmosphere of Russian-American relations. One positive example is the solidarity vote at the UN on the resolution on the Ukrainian conflict (yes, that’s right! The United States voted in solidarity not only with Russia, which is recognized as an aggressor by most countries, but also with North Korea and Iran; Israel, in my opinion, was forced to join this “coalition” because it is completely dependent on Trump, and under Biden it either abstained or supported the recognition of Russia as an aggressor! – N.B.)
Mutual interest in normalizing bilateral relations was expressed in light of the “special responsibility of Russia and the United States for ensuring security and stability in the world. In this context, a wide range of areas in which our countries could establish cooperation was considered. We discussed a number of ideas that could lead to the development of mutually beneficial cooperation in the economy and energy sector.”
All US presidents, from George W. Bush to Biden, started with similar proposals and agreements with the post-Soviet Russian Federation. At the same time, all of them excluded the real role of Russia in destabilizing these regions: the saturation of terrorist groups subordinated to the FSB-GRU, covert and sometimes open support for local “guerrillas” such as the Houthis, demonstrative support for Hamas and Hezbollah – all US presidents believed that constructive proposals on mutual responsibility for maintaining “stability” in these regions would distract Russia from its traditional destructive role there.
Proposals for nuclear weapons control are not worth analyzing (every US president has included such proposals in his attempts to “reset” relations with Russia). Everyone has seen who has been threatening the world with the use of nuclear weapons since the beginning of the war with Ukraine in 2014, and it is more than naive to hope that these proposals will prevent Russia from further blackmail.
Thus, Putin is making exactly the same demands and “proposals” that he has made to previous US presidents. This is nothing new!
Trump is now stepping on the same rake, only, unlike his predecessors, who were only naive but did not deviate from fundamental American values, he is able to sacrifice these values to the Russian dictator. Why?
Why did Trump, with his campaign promises and subsequent actions, make himself completely dependent on the capricious Russian dictator and ignore the experience of all his predecessors?
Most importantly, is it even possible to hope that Trump, as a mediator, will achieve the end of what he himself promised to be “brutal killings” without specifying who is responsible for these killings?
So far, we have watched in horror as Trump, with a zeal that is clearly better used, tries to destroy the very foundation on which the United States stands. Is this intentional, to appease Putin, or is it a side effect, and his intentions are actually different?
This is how a whole series of questions arise that, at first glance, are not very related. Is the long-overdue reduction of the overly bloated state apparatus an attempt to destroy the system of public administration? Is it an attempt to regulate the US information space in compliance with the First Amendment or an attempt to establish control over this space? Impartial, equidistant mediation in the Russian-Ukrainian war – or an attempt to destroy the existing world order and push it to the point where uncontrolled territorial claims can begin?
Let’s try to see through the fog of omissions and chaotic actions – to a certain point.
Testing powers, checks, and balances
From the first day of his inauguration, the United States and the world have watched – some with horror, others with admiration – as the 47th president acts, as if in the words of the Russian poet Osip Mandelstam about Stalin: “forges order after order.” As if he were Stalin, Trump rules the country, issuing dozens of different presidential orders one after another, every day, without regard for the other branches of government – the legislative and judicial.
Following the cancellation of USAID, it was the turn of the Voice of America and Radio Liberty – the only state-owned media outlets in the United States that ensured America’s information influence in the world and opposed dictators with the help of truthful information. Moreover, according to many journalists, it was these media outlets that created the highest journalistic standards and served as some of the most reliable sources of information.
However, Trump and his supporters argued for the closure of state funding for these sources by saying that they are allegedly “captured by radical left forces.” Is this true? The answer is probably no, both media outlets strive to cover issues as objectively as possible from all possible points of view. However, employees of these media outlets raised the question from a different angle: do not such arguments violate the First Amendment on freedom of speech? (After all, no president, whether Democrat or Republican, has even raised questions about closing any media outlet, in particular, Obama did not try to close the “far-right”, in his opinion, Fox News!)
From the first day of his entry into the White House, Trump, acting through a newly created ministry or advisory body – the “Department of Government Efficiency” – has been laying off government employees and civil servants; to date, the number has exceeded hundreds of thousands.
An article in USA Today provides a detailed chronology of the process of mass layoffs and their appeals through the courts. It presents a picture of actions aimed at radically reducing the state apparatus, but extremely inconsistent, without a strategy on how and to what extent to reduce it. Such actions lead to the termination of the functioning of extremely important state services, in particular, providing for war veterans, predicting natural disasters, protecting national reserves, etc. And dismissals without taking into account the legislation in labor activities lead to numerous court appeals.
The cuts reached such “pillars” of the American state security system as “Social Security”, Medicare (federal health insurance for people over 65) and, especially, Medicaid – health insurance for people with low incomes, which is distributed between the federal and state budgets, and also, at the height of the tax return filing season, thousands of employees of the Internal Revenue Service were laid off. All these actions are irritating to voters of both parties, because they affect the daily lives of millions of Americans. At all meetings with voters, they openly express their dissatisfaction.
However, the main confrontation between the White House and all those affected by layoffs, cuts, and arbitrary actions is through appeals in the courts. In Congress, the Republican majority in both chambers is completely subordinate to Trump, even the “Reagan” wing does not raise a protest, because it is in the minority. The Democrats are also in the minority and did not even take the opportunity to thwart Trump’s plan to approve government funding until the end of the current fiscal year, because they feared that this could lead to a final shutdown of the government for an indefinite period. In such circumstances, only the judicial branch of power has taken on the role of the final element of the half-demolished system of checks and balances. It can be controlled by the president only partially – through the Department of Justice and the system of prosecutors. Trump, through “his” Attorney General Pam Bondi, has, of course, already fired all prosecutors who had contact not only with his criminal cases, but also with every participant in the coup attempt on January 6, 2021.
He has also stripped all of his most important political opponents of their state secrets clearance, from Hillary Clinton to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger (former Republican members of Congress who participated in his impeachments). This, by the way, also defines the limits to which the president can take revenge on his opponents: he cannot harm them more significantly.
Judges do not obey anyone. This is what causes the greatest anger of Trump and Trumpists. They are currently looking for opportunities to influence rebellious judges. In particular, they have put forward the idea of “impeaching” judges. The Supreme Court has refused to even consider the possibility of this.
In short, the courts are currently the main force in the fight against the endless “order-making.” Experts are already beginning to call the whole situation a “constitutional crisis.” Its essence lies in whether it will be possible to redefine the boundaries between the powers of the president, Congress, and the judicial branch.
Trump’s enchanted spiral
Having briefly listed Trump’s actions and the constitutional crisis he has caused, let’s return to the question: why is the 47th president doing this? Why is he throwing the state administration into chaos? Why is he eliminating or reducing the intelligence departments that were responsible for countering Russian threats, including in cyberspace (I touched on this in a previous article)? Why does he act in domestic and foreign policy as if he were in cahoots with Putin?
Some experts, primarily defectors from post-Soviet agencies, indicate that Trump was recruited by the KGB back in 1987, and since then has been used as a “trump card” in various deals to buy up the elite real estate of Trump the developer by Russian oligarchs (and buy him out of bankruptcy) before he was nominated as president of the most powerful state, the eternal enemy of these “post-Soviet” agencies.
However, in my opinion, even if Trump’s connection with the Russian Federation had not been confirmed, he would most likely have done the same.
Because with his actions, he has driven himself into a vicious spiral since his first presidency.
From his first campaign speeches in 2015 – 2016, he began to “unobtrusively” emphasize his “good relations” with the Russian leader – which at the time sounded contrary to his political rival Hillary Clinton (a completely permissible method of political struggle) and helped to rally American supporters of the Russian Federation around him. However, this immediately aroused suspicion among his opponents, primarily members of Congress – Democrats, who only needed a reason to inflame political passions. But, it was even more important – his words and actions aroused suspicion among experts, journalists and intelligence officers, independent of party passions. Thus arose the first investigation into the “possible collusion” of the Trump campaign headquarters with the Russian Federation – the investigation of special prosecutor Mueller. It ended with the establishment of the fact of Russian interference in the electoral process, but was suddenly nullified at the final stage, without answering the main question of the entire investigation: was there a conspiracy? Instead of an answer, there were vague chatter about the immunity of the incumbent president from criminal prosecution.
However, since then, Trump has begun to use the tactic of self-defense: the best defense is an attack. He began his war against everyone who not only investigated him, but also simply criticized him: attacks on the media, journalists, Democrats, the judiciary, etc. The further he went, the more chaotic and sharper both sides acted – and this war, in the end, became one of the decisive factors in his defeat in 2020.
Since then, the spiral of mutual persecution, confrontation, and trials has only expanded. Since an essential element of it was Trump’s accusations of ties to the Russian Federation, he increasingly directed the spearhead of his own war against all elements of the US institutional system that, in one way or another, oppose the Russian Federation as a national threat.
Trump either really believed that the “Russian threat” to the United States was being deliberately exaggerated by his political opponents from both parties, or he was cleverly downplaying this threat, trying to break out of the spiral, but the consequences are exactly what we are seeing: his personal fears and thirst for revenge have merged with all the pro-Russian elements in the United States, in mutual use. Trump personally depends on the abolition of the entire “deep state” that dared to question him. Since this, in fact, non-existent, “deep state” (in fact, intelligence professionals, FBI investigators, specialists in how to fight tax abuses, etc.) opposed, among other threats to national security, also the Russian Federation, then Trump quite logically resorted to the systematic destruction of this “deep state”. And the fact that the system of checks and balances – the fundamental principles of American democracy – is being destroyed along with it – so be it! Which is Putin’s most cherished dream!
There is no way out of such a spiral except to destroy it. Therefore, will Trump manage to destroy it? Or, on the contrary, will it persist, and Trump will ultimately suffer defeat or at least slightly suspend his destructive ardor, because the system of checks and balances will stand? The very existence of the American democratic system has become dependent on how the constitutional crisis is resolved.
Passionate mediator
Trump’s attitude towards the Russian-Ukrainian war will ultimately depend on how the constitutional crisis in the United States, caused by the Trump spiral (among other more objective processes that led to the global clash of the Russian Federation with crisis phenomena and democratic systems), is resolved.
He currently finds himself in a narrow corridor between the Scylla of his relations with the Russian Federation (and with all elements of the US systemic institutions that confront the Russian threat) and the Charybdis of his own promises to end this war. According to various polls, the majority of American society is against surrendering Ukraine’s defense, because they see this as surrendering the interests of American allies, that is, the bankruptcy of American reliability. Therefore, Trump cannot openly play along with Putin in fulfilling his demands.
However, is he interested in ensuring Ukraine’s victory? In my opinion, not at all. Firstly, this was proclaimed as his strategic goal by his political opponent Joe Biden, and it is none of Trump’s business that Biden’s proclamation did not come true, not least because of the indecision of the Biden administration itself – Trump should have nothing to do with Biden, because from Trump’s point of view, Biden is to blame for both the fact that the war started and the fact that it did not end. Well, no words about Ukraine’s victory! No words about who actually started the war – only about “stopping the killings”!
Secondly, Trump does not believe that Ukraine’s victory can lead to the defeat of the Russian Federation, and therefore to his own exit from the aforementioned spiral. And if the Russian Federation cannot be defeated, Putin’s spiral will only intensify its pressure on him.
What is left for him? What some political scientists called an “honorable draw” – “honor” alone will not be enough for both Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Each side will have its own survival in mind first and foremost, but only for Ukraine will survival be tantamount to existential existence as an independent state. There are too many factors here to determine how events will develop. They will fluctuate, as if in a stormy ocean, between two extremes. Between the best option – a temporary cessation of the hot stage of the war where it will end up, as a result of Trump’s pressure on both sides (if he manages to set the limits of what is permissible within the US and if both warring parties become exhausted) – and, at worst… something similar to what happened in the 1930s (if Trump manages to overthrow the system of checks and balances).
