Putin’s fork dilemma: to do what he is told to do or face a harsh response from Trump

Following yesterday’s Jeddah meeting, the United States lifted the pause on intelligence sharing and restored security assistance to Ukraine, indicating partnership relations between Washington and Kyiv are being brough back on track. This is first.

Second, Ukraine accepted US proposal on a 30-day comprehensive ceasefire with Russia, encompassing, inter alia, humanitarian initiatives, such as the exchange of prisoners of war, etc., thus showing a constructive position and confirming readiness for peace — without security guarantees, but also without recognizing Putin’s “wishes” (even though Rubio reported that the issue of territorial concessions was discussed in Jeddah, but at least there is no word about it in the joint statement).

Thus, full responsibility for how the situation will develop in the future lies with Russia.

However, a full 24-hour day has passed by, but there is no official response coming from Putin yet, excepting the “pretentious” statement made the spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova: “The formation of the Russian Federation’s position does not take place abroad at the expense of some agreements or efforts of some parties. The formation of the Russian Federation’s position takes place inside the Russian Federation.” And the “evasive” response of Peskov, the dictator’s press secretary: “There should be no running ahead of the events. We are carefully studying the statements that were made following the negotiations between the US and Ukraine in Jeddah.”

What options does Putin have to choose from? In fact, there are three of them:

1) Agree to a 30-day truce, meaning to show weakness in the eyes of his clowns (the Boss has bowed down) and multiply his so-called constitution by zero. Regarding the latter, let’s not forget that Moscow has repeatedly insisted that “new realities must be taken into account”, in particular, the recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over the Ukrainian regions it occupied and “incorporated into the Russian Federation”: “These regions are included in our constitution and there can be no question of any ceasefire without these regions within their administrative borders being returned”;

2) Accept, but with additional counter-conditions being imposed. What kind of “conditions” these could be? These may range from the lifting of US sanctions against the Russian Federation to (see above) the recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over the territories it occupied;

3) Reject the ceasefire proposal. But this would mean provoking Trump and ending the period of mutual “curtseys” between Moscow and Washington. Incidentally, US Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham has already stated that the Kremlin’s refusal to accept the proposed ceasefire will give grounds for imposing tougher sanctions on the Russian Federation. And by saying “no,” Putin could lose the support of a large part of the Global South, especially given Saudi Arabia’s role in the negotiations. Plus, it could “surprise” (in a negative sense for Putin) China, which expects a sustainable settlement of the “Russian-Ukrainian conflict” following the talks at Jeddah.

We’re curious to hear what experts think about this all. But first…

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer

HOW EUROPE REACTED TO THE OUTCOME OF THE UKRAINE-US JEDDAH NEGOTIATIONS…

Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, congratulated Zelensky and Trump on achieving a “wonderful breakthrough”. He called for redoubled efforts to achieve a lasting peace, noting that “the ball is now in Russia’s court” – Moscow must agree to a cessation of hostilities.

President Emmanuel Macron of France hailed the progress reached in the negotiations between the US and Ukraine. And he also emphasized that now “the ball is definitely in Russia’s court”.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called the events a “turning point”. She noted that the agreements reached mark a crucial step towards peace and security. Germany will support Ukraine, and Russia must stop its aggression.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, praised the results of the negotiations and the US decision to resume supplies of military aid and weaponry to Kyiv. She considers this to be a step towards a just peace. The EU is ready and willing to participate in the negotiations.

EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaija Kallas welcomed the outcomes of the talks and stressed that the EU would do everything it can to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, called the talks “a crucial step towards peace”.

Edgars Rinkėvičs, the President of Latvia, stressed that Ukraine had demonstrated a genuine readiness for a just peace.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said that providing peace and security guarantees would be a key priority in the future.

…AND WHAT THEY IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ARE SAYING

Putin remains silent, and his spokespersons – Peskov and Zakharova – speak cautiously without providing specifics. Instead, Russian second-tier politicians and the so-called Z-bloggers and war correspondents explicitly oppose the ceasefire, calling it a threat to the Russian Federation.

Vice Speaker of the Federation Council Kosachev states that Russia will only accept those conditions that it considers beneficial for itself, and State Duma deputy Sobolev publicly says that the ceasefire will allow Ukraine to regroup and reorganize its forces and to obtain more weaponry.

War correspondent at Komsomolskaya Pravda Aleksandr Kots believes that the pause will only help Ukraine accumulate weapons, and Russia will then be blamed for the continuation of war. Z-blogger Boris Rozhyn suggests that during the ceasefire, Ukraine can imitate the negotiation process in order to reinforce its army and wait for American weapons to arrive, and then resume hostilities with renewed energy. The author of the Telegram channel “Zhivov Z”, Aleksei Zhivov has hopes that the Kremlin will not take this move, while the Z-channel “War Chronicle” calls the ceasefire a “strategic mistake”.

Experts: “The Jeddah negotiations can definitely be considered a victory for Ukraine on the diplomatic front. At least for the present”.

“It is important to press the situation until it is solved, without looking at what Putin says or does”

“Ukraine has reestablished relations with the US, and this is of significance strategically. The theses voiced in the joint statement of the two delegations are encouraging, because they change the narrative being aggressively promoted by Russia, saying that Ukraine does not want peace and refuses to negotiate. This message was even picked up by Trump. Now the situation has changed, and this can already be considered our diplomatic victory. We will see what happens next, but now it is important to press the situation until it is solved, regardless of what actions Putin takes,” Ihor Reiterovych, a political analyst told Ukrinform in a comment.

Ihor Reiterovych

Reiterovych believes Putin has three options to choose from: to accept, refuse or delay.

“The third scenario seems the most likely. He can put forward new demands, imitating readiness for dialogue, but in fact it will be a delaying game,” the expert argues.

For Ukraine, there is a certain plus in this: if this is the case, we can appeal to allies with a call to step up their support and provide more aid. So for the time being, the analyst claims, the situation is developing quite favorably for us, although it remains extremely dynamic and can change at any moment.

“Even if Putin drags out the process and puts forward additional demands, they will not concern the territories. It will be more about the technical aspects of organizing a ceasefire, and that is a separate story. By the way, the Geneva Center for Security Policy published a report titled “A ‘Swiss army knife’ of options for achieving a sustainable ceasefire in Ukraine”, which  suggests the setting up of an international mission to monitor ceasefire enforcement, consisting of 5,000 civilian monitors plus 10,000 military personnel. But even in this scenario, the truce will not come instantly – its implementation will take time.”

However, if Putin says “no”, Trump will not remain silent.

“Trump has actually staked everything on his so-called “respect” for Putin. If the Kremlin ignored this, thus putting Trump in a bad light, the latter will have to respond. This response may be in the form of increased arms deliveries to Ukraine or the imposition of new, tougher sanctions on Russia. That said, Trump will not even have to impose the sanctions actually, but just announce them, and the situation will change dramatically in a week’s time,” Reiterovych argues.

It means that this response comes from the position of strength: “I have hopes that Washington figured this out in advance and understands: if Putin says “A”, they will have to respond with a “B”.

So now, Putin has his hands tied

“He is forced to either act or, by dragging out the process, provoke Trump into a tough response. This is a favorable situation for Ukraine, but all that means is to act with caution and bring the process to a logical conclusion. The war is ongoing, the fighting does not stop, so we continue to do our job in the manner we did before. The key now is not to let Europe relax. On the contrary, we must avail of this situation to persuade partners of the need to shore up their support for Ukraine. This will send an important message to Putin and will strengthen our positions. Judging by recent statements, Europe understands this and demonstrates its readiness to act. The meeting with Macron (chiefs of staff, – ed.) confirms that no one is going to wait – the allies are set for an active response, “- emphasized Ihor Reiterovych.

“We have achieved the maximum possible extent today”

Yuri Bohdanov, a political analyst, says that, given the resumption of military aid and intelligence sharing, as well as the previous (albeit without explicit guarantees) intention for a 30-day ceasefire without any mention being made of Russian “wishes”, this can definitely be considered a victory for Ukraine on the diplomatic front.

“At least for the present day. Because, given the specifics of the Trump administration, they can replay everything tomorrow. But for now, we have achieved the maximum extent possible,” he comments.

Yuri Bohdanov

As for the Russians…

“They will try to somehow shift the blame for the lack of “war freeze” onto us. It is important for them to show their domestic population that the Tsar is not bowing to the US and Ukraine. And to keep Europe and the US in tension, creating additional points of tension,” Bohdanov says.

The demands the Kremlin can make of the US and Ukraine will include the lifting of part of sanctions (probably on the table), recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over the territories it occupied – without publicly formulating them, but with actual concessions and rejection of the idea of ​​peacekeepers.”

“But Russia will refuse this all if it is truly set to negotiate. But for this to happen, the Russian army is supposed to become exhausted to a sufficient extent”, the expert says.

As far as Putin is concerned, the probability is low that he would say “no” right away. The Kremlin can drag out, throwing out one proposal after another.

“If the flirtations fail, it will be Trump’s time to act – either to put pressure on Putin or to return to blackmailing Ukraine. Therefore, we need to be very cautious,” says Mr Bohdanov.

Asked about the challenges currently facing Ukraine and Europe, he replied: “To maintain unity in terms of exerting political and economic pressure on the Kremlin. The absence of disagreements within the EU is, without exaggeration, the key to pursuing a common strategy towards Russia. To support Ukraine’s warfighting capability as the main factor of security for both Ukraine and Europe. Now it is critical that Ukraine keep on its diplomatic pressure at the highest level possible, as this would offer a possibility of the “war freeze” scenario not becoming a new norm, and of the situation developing in favor of Ukraine and all of Europe.”

“I strongly doubt that Moscow will take this move”

Olexandr Kovalenko, defense and policy analyst at “Information Resistance” group comments: “Ukraine has reached the first concrete agreements on a ceasefire. Now the decision is up to Russia. If it did not agree to a ceasefire, it is in for very disappointing consequences for itself. And I have serious doubts that Moscow will take this move, because it has not yet completed its offensive campaign in the Kursk region. It will try to complete it at the earliest time possible so that there are no areas beyond its control left on its territory. In addition, it is important for Russia to seize a number of new areas on the territory of Ukraine, in particular Chasiv Yar and Toretsk,” says Kovalenko.

Oleksandr Kovalenko

For Russia, a ceasefire at this stage is actually amounting to a defeat. Therefore, even if there is an opportunity to come to terms with Russia, it will be an extremely difficult task to do, and most likely, it will be impossible at all.”

Such a situation can make Trump very angry

“Which is certainly in our interests. This would galvanize a change in the American president’s position regarding support and weaponry aid for Ukraine. Should this be the case, forcing Russia into peace will be through force, and this could also result in the liberation of Ukrainian territories,” says Oleksandr Kovalenko.

“Trump, despite his chaotic nature, has come to a logical conclusion – if Putin does not want peace, he will have to continue supporting Ukraine.”

According to journalist Vitaly Portnikov, Putin’s goal is not to bring the war to an end, but to force the United States into negotiations that will go on against the backdrop of continued hostilities, preferably without American assistance to Ukraine.

Vitali Portnikov

“The negotiations at Jeddah prove that this Putin’s plan is unlikely to work. The Russian president will again have to answer Trump’s question about the end of hostilities. And if the answer is negative, the US response will become fairly predictable – Trump has already stated this: we will have to continue the war and support Ukraine. That said, the choice must be made by Putin, and this choice will depend on the state of the Russian economy,” Portnikov comments.

Should Putin decide that he has enough resources to withstand a confrontation with the United States, we will face years of war, during which Trump’s America will support Ukraine in about the same way as Biden’s America did.

If Putin decides that, in the face of economic difficulties it is more beneficial for him to come to an agreement with Trump, we may see a cessation of hostilities.

“However, the duration of the truce and the possibility of a lasting peace will depend on many factors: the global economic and political situation, Russia’s readiness for provocations aimed at disrupting the truce, as well as Ukraine’s determination to continue to fight for its own existence in the conditions of a protracted confrontation,” the journalist noted.

It is currently impossible to predict all these circumstances.

“But the fact remains: Donald Trum, despite his chaotic nature, has come to a logical conclusion – if Putin does not want peace, he will have to continue supporting Ukraine. And this in itself is a good result achieved at negotiations in Saudi Arabia. After all, common sense is always better than dangerous illusions,” Vitali Portnikov commented.

“Accepting a temporary truce is actually giving Kyiv a respite and an opportunity to turn the situation around. It is not beneficial for Putin.”

Ihor Petrenko, a political scientist, describes the talks between Ukraine and the United States at Jeddah as one of the most important events in our diplomatic marathon: “We got the most out of the situation that has developed. What does this give Ukraine? First of all, the opportunity to quickly stabilize the frontline.”

Ihor Petrenko

He believes that, if Moscow at least formally agrees to a temporary ceasefire, it will allow us to regroup and reorganize our forces, bring up reserves, bolster defenses, replenish ammunition stockpiles, and, most importantly, receive new packages of military assistance.

But will the Kremlin agree?

“Accepting a temporary ceasefire means actually giving Kyiv a respite and an opportunity to turn the situation around. This does not benefit Putin,” the political scientist says.

Should Moscow say “no,” the United States is unlikely to confine its action to sheer statements: “Potential options include rapid adoption of bills on military assistance, accelerating weapons deliveries, including particularly long-range ATACMS missiles in large quantities.”

But the Kremlin too has several scenarios to choose from.

The first is to veto any peace initiatives, with an emphasis put on continuing the war “until victory.” Should this be the case, Ukraine will get a powerful argument: “We were ready to stop, Russia was not.”

The second is to imitate consent to a truce, but burden this with unacceptable conditions, such as, for example, fixing the front line as a temporary border or demanding the lifting of sanctions.

The third is to drag out negotiations under different pretexts so as to keep the initiative on the battlefield, but in a way that does not look like an outright refusal in the eyes of the United States.

“What if the Russian Federation does agree? This will mark a certain break in its stance. This could be the first step towards more meaningful negotiations or an attempt by Moscow to reformat the conflict, but without actual concessions made,” comments Ihor Petrenko. “Several major points are still ahead. Should Moscow reject the ceasefire proposal, Kyiv and Washington will intensify pressure, and Ukraine will receive more assistance. If the Kremlin surprisingly agrees, it will be necessary to meticulously analyze the hidden motives. All that means is to use the pause in hostilities better (more effectively) than Moscow will do.”

Myroslav Liskovych, Kyiv