Trump's Ukrainian gambit met its match as Putin utilize Russia's strategy of the "no" agreement.
It ain't a yes when it's a maybe, a likely no, or conditionally maybe. That's the disheartening revelation from the Trump administration's first real go at wartime diplomacy with the Kremlin - a lesson taught through bluffery.
They requested a 30-day, widespread ceasefire, sans conditions. Fast forward to Tuesday, and they received – after a dramatic week-long delay and the loss of hundreds more lives – a small prisoner swap, ice hockey games, more discussions, and – according to the Kremlin briefing – a mutual 30-day standstill on attacks against energy facilities.
However, there lies an easily avoidable technical minefield. As per President Trump and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the agreement pertained to "energy AND infrastructure." Unfortunately, these two concepts are distinct ideas.
Russia pledges to refrain from attacking Ukraine's electrical grids and gas supplies – a practice that has mercilessly impacted Ukraine's past winters, pushing countless families to dance precariously with icy conditions and emergency power sources. On the other hand, the White House – encapsulating uncertainty in a disagreement, typo, or translation nuance – has extended this truce to potentially every part of Ukraine classified as infrastructure: bridges, perhaps essential roads, or ports, or railways. As a result, the conditions are set for Russia's relentless air assaults to fail in adhering to the agreement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed openness to a pause, but insisted on understanding the "details." Some consider the halt in energy infrastructure attacks less of a concession due to the arrival of summer and the reduced need for Ukrainian heating. For Ukraine, however, halting attacks on Russia's energy infrastructure dilutes one of their most potent weapons. They've long been using long-range drones and missiles to damage Russian oil refineries and pipelines, causing significant damage to the Kremlin's main fundraising tool: the export of its hydrocarbons, primarily to China and India.
The Trump-Putin call yielded little except the expected conclusion that Putin can outplay Trump effortlessly. The swap of 175 prisoners and the return of 23 seriously wounded Ukrainians is a minor exchange, already seemingly in the works, with swift implementation hoped for by Wednesday. Beyond this and the energy infrastructure truce, Russia utilized the week-long delay and call to push for the halt of all foreign aid and intelligence sharing as part of a deal, as well as establishing "working groups" on Ukraine and US-Russia relations. "Working groups" translates to Russian diplomatic code for an ardent lack of interest. Putin demonstrated this apathy by apparently initiating a pause in energy attacks immediately, while embracing reluctance to perform other undesirable tasks until additional meetings at an unspecified time. Putin seems intent on revisiting the idea that all aid to Ukraine should cease, an idea that Trump had already attempted once, for about a week.
Some of these technical pitfalls were seeded by the basic nature of the initial Jeddah statement from the US and Ukraine. Showing admirable – but simplistic – ambition, the proposal demanded an immediate 30-day halt to all hostilities in a three-year gruesome war. The proposal did not account for the time required to implement such a move, nor did it outline who would monitor adherence to the truce.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed satellites as the ideal solution for surveillance. While likely feasible, this proposition assumes Russia would be content with the United States scrutinizing its front-line positions meticulously, and acting as the sole judge of violation offenses. One could argue the Jeddah proposal catered to Trump's simplistic, yet irresistible, yearning for immediate peace, while offering sufficient scope for Moscow to exploit its customary and meticulous search for loopholes. And Putin swiftly capitalized on these opportunities.
Ultimately, the Kremlin was not interested in discussing nuances – for example, the involvement of the OSCE or the UN in policing the front line – but instead offered as few concessions as possible without presenting Trump with an outright "no."
However, an outright "no" is exactly what Trump received. It was disguised as a "partial ceasefire," but it constitutes merely the prelude to Russia's decades-long deceitful diplomacy. They've agreed to a standstill that – moving forward – is likely to disburse money from Moscow. In fact, the initial confusion over the agreement's specifics has widened a chasm in any future peace agreement large enough for Putin to drive another full-scale invasion through. Did both sides not set aside staffers after the call to prepare identical summaries of what was agreed?
The past month's theatrical performance provides little comfort that the war is suddenly on its way to peace. Yes, the Trump administration has discussed peace in ways that no other party has in this war. But they have also admitted, in short shrift, that Moscow seeks out vulnerabilities and mercilessly uses them to advance.
Trump believed he could either persuade, coax, or outsmart Putin. To date, he has not succeeded at any of these tasks. He has visibly lost in his first direct diplomatic confrontation with Putin. For millions of Ukrainians, Trump's next move shapes their lives. Will he lose enthusiasm, apply pressure, or grant more concessions? The prospect is dizzying.
His adversary is not focused on improved relations with its long-time nemesis, the United States, or with its current president, Donald Trump, but instead on victory in its most existential conflict since Nazism. These viewpoints are not on parallel paths. One approach is tactical, while the other is strategical.
In 2024, the world may witness a continuation of the Europe-Russia energy standstill, as the Kremlin's agreement with the White House refers to a halt on attacks against both energy and infrastructure, potentially encompassing more than just energy facilities. This pedantic distinction could cause problems, leading to a failure of Russia to adhere to the agreement if the White House fails to identify and address this technical minefield. Despite Ukraine's openness to a pause, the halt in energy infrastructure attacks may dilute one of Ukraine's most potent weapons against the Kremlin, as they have been using long-range drones and missiles to damage Russian oil refineries and pipelines.
