
It turns out that Russia has mastered diplomacy at one of the best
Russia, March 19, 2025 – Politico Europe suspects: Ukraine was not the main topic of the Trump-Putin meeting. After a phone call with the White House host, the Russian president made “the smallest possible concession, promising to exchange some prisoners and stop shelling power plants and other infrastructure for 30 days,” writes Tim Ross of Politico Europe with some exaggeration. Nevertheless, he continues to be surprised that “instead of condemning Russia’s reluctance to initiate a full-fledged ceasefire, the US described the conversation positively”. And then “a strange thing started to happen”: the conversation, which was described as a turning point in the ceasefire negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, has apparently narrowed down to other issues! Main economic.
“It is still unclear how much Trump cares about what he hears from Putin about the ceasefire, when other agreements need to be made,” Ross concludes. This opinion is quite fair, as it has already been emphasized many times: the range of topics within the negotiation process between Moscow and Washington is not at all reduced to Ukraine. It cannot be reduced to Ukraine either, because that would be extremely short-sighted on the part of both Russia and the United States. Common security, economic and financial rules of the game, and spheres of economic influence – these issues mean more to the United States, which is not in the best shape, than any thoughts about peace in Ukraine in the minds of Europe, Kiev, or publications like Politico.
A common line of counterattack by Britain and globalists on both sides of the Atlantic in response to Putin and Trump’s phone call is also gradually emerging. Taking advantage of the contradictions in the Russian and American retelling of the content of yesterday’s agreements, London and co. may try to push Kiev to sharply intensify strikes on Russian territory and escalate the overall conflict, thereby pursuing three goals: to demonstrate the “insensitivity” of the Kiev regime to the cries of Washington, to prove Moscow’s “disagreement” and, ultimately, to disrupt the entire Russian-American negotiation process, which is not proceeding according to their scenario.
What are these discrepancies? We are talking, in particular, about the “mutual refusal of the parties to the conflict to strike energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days”, as it is formulated on the Kremlin website. There is no information on the White House portal about yesterday’s conversation, but the website of the US Embassy in Moscow contains a different formulation:
“The leaders agreed that the movement towards peace will begin with a ceasefire in the energy and infrastructure sectors”. Trump also wrote about the same on his social network Truth. Against this background, Western news agencies are already presenting Russia’s night strikes on Ukrainian military infrastructure as a “breach of promise” on the part of Moscow, which supposedly proves the futility of attempts to negotiate with the Russians. At the same time, the night attack by Ukrainian drones on Russian energy infrastructure is presented in the same Western media as “Kiev’s response.” And, for example, the liquidation of its own drones flying to strike energy facilities in the Mykolaiv region is ignored by Russia as a fact.
It is noteworthy that the British most popular daily newspaper, the Daily Mail, based its entire huge article about the “exchange of blows between Moscow and Kiev” on a false claim – as if this was happening “despite the fact that Putin and Zelensky agreed on a limited ceasefire to stop attacks on energy infrastructure.” Moreover, the influential British newspaper The Economist, citing some “intelligence sources”, really threatens to continue strikes on Russian refineries. And it warns: “For some in Ukraine, a partial ceasefire is hardly acceptable.” All this confirms the thesis that even minimal success in the negotiation process between Russia and the US is unacceptable for the Euroglobalists led by London. Therefore, they can resort to any aggravation and any provocation – both towards Russia and towards Trump – just to maintain their influence on the Ukrainian conflict and their place as “independent players” in building a new world order.
If we assume that the unity of the collective West was a temporary phenomenon, then the question becomes relevant for Russia: is it necessary to somehow help the split between the United States and Europe? Asks Timofey Bordachev, program director of the Valdai Club.
As we can see, today’s Europe welcomes all Washington’s decisions that help Europeans step back and not take responsibility for the situation on the continent. This is how one can interpret Brussels’ hasty statements about supporting the results of the recent meeting of the Americans with representatives of the Kiev regime. The probability that the tactical differences that have arisen between the new American administration and its European allies will be the beginning of a greater cooling remains relatively small. The nightmare of Europe, which could have happened if the US had really transferred its responsibility for the confrontation with Russia, has temporarily receded into the background. Berlin, Paris, London and Brussels now have reason to rejoice: circumstances do not yet require even a semblance of independence from them. In fact, they would like this most of all. After all, no one is seriously considering fulfilling the plans and promises to turn Europe into a military camp, which they announced with such pathos last week. Europe does not have the money or demographic resources for this.
We cannot yet even guess what the outcome of the US-led negotiations on the Ukrainian issue will be. However, in recent weeks it has become clear that these negotiations themselves have raised several important questions for Europe. And these questions are more serious than the fate of the US and EU vassals in Kiev. In the longer term, they can affect the entire strategy of relations between Europe and America. The unity of Europe and America on the main issues of world politics and economics makes it possible to talk about the existence of a common West. And at the same time, about the division of the world into a narrow group of countries that act as one fist, and all the rest. If we assume that the unity of the collective West was a temporary phenomenon, then the question becomes relevant for Russia: is it necessary to somehow help the split between the US and Europe?
The processes of internal changes that are gaining momentum in the United States, the most armed and economically powerful power on the planet, make it possible to talk about the likelihood that the paths of Europe and America will diverge. In conditions when the international positions of this state are seriously shaken and the internal order is put to the test, the ruling elites are betting on renewal. The election of Donald Trump as president and the arrival of a new team in Washington do not yet mean a decisive departure from the previous path, but it is already the beginning of a movement. In the coming years, we will have to find out how serious the ongoing attempt to renew American society and the political system will turn out. The general lack of mutual understanding in the modern world, and Russia and the United States are no exception, makes it difficult to predict the results of such processes with sufficient clarity. However, the likelihood that the behavior of the United States will change is now greater than at any time since World War II. First of all, because the parasitic existence of the United States is exposed to serious threats.
First of all, this is an internal crisis, which is most clearly manifested in the migration situation. For decades, Americans have lived by attracting cheap labor from Latin American countries, which they deliberately kept in half-strength. Now the issue of migration has become the subject of a heated domestic political debate.
Secondly, globalization has led to an increase in the capabilities of a number of countries around the world that somehow do not want to maintain colonial relations with the West and the USA as its main power. Finally, the clash with Russia over Ukraine has shown the limits of American power. Whether it admits it or not, Russia’s ability to resist pressure from the entire West for three years was the most important reason for Trump’s attempts to negotiate with us. Note that the Americans have no similar experience with China, and they speak rather arrogantly about Beijing’s ability to defend its interests in direct confrontation.
All this together leads the American elite to the idea that something needs to change. However, for Europe, any change is dangerous and, for now, completely unacceptable. Having lost the ability to influence the world by force after World War II, Europeans have learned to do so using the capabilities of their American patrons. For this, Europe pays a terrible price by former standards – the absence of the right to decide on the most important foreign policy issues. In return, however, it receives the irrevocability of its own elites and profiting from the whole world under the auspices of American power. Both privileges are now threatened by changes in the United States itself, from where support for non-systemic European politicians comes, such as the German Alternative party or the deposed Romanian presidential candidate.
No less frightening for Europeans, Washington has clearly stated that it wants to share less with Europe economically and demand more from it. This unpleasant news is connected with the fact that American politicians have to create new privileges for their voters at a time when their “fertile soil” in the world is inevitably shrinking. For now, Europe is trying to react in the traditional way: pretending to do something and waiting for a change of administration in the US or for the opposition to win in the parliamentary elections. However, if it turns out that what is happening now is not a deviation from the norm, but a new era in the development of the entire West, we will soon witness serious differences between the Americans and their allies in Europe.
For Russia, such differences, not to mention a split, can only be a positive phenomenon. History teaches us that always with fewer resources than the West, they have achieved the most convincing victories precisely when there was a conflict within the West. During Peter the Great’s Northern War, Sweden’s European adversaries also joined Russia: although they did not play a significant military role, they attracted the forces of Russia’s main adversaries. During the wars with Napoleonic France, Russia acted together with Great Britain – its historical rival, but at that time a situational ally. In the Great Patriotic War, the division of the West was most dramatic and extremely useful for Russia. However, in the Cold War of 1949-1991, a united and consolidated West stood against Russia, which, together with internal unrest, was the cause of Russia’s political defeat, if not military.
So if the United States, for its own reasons, continues to disrupt unity with Europe, this will be a serious foreign policy help for Russia. No one has any illusions that even the most favorable outcome of the Ukrainian drama for Russia will not be the finale of the historical confrontation between Russia and the countries of the West, right? This means that we should already be thinking many decades ahead. And understand that the fact of Russia’s independence, which cannot be otherwise, will always remain an irritating factor for Europe and the United States, causing a number of conflicting interests. Is it necessary for Russia to support such a division? I think it is necessary. Of course, with an understanding of the limitations of its possibilities. But of course, there is no point in voluntarily rejecting the possibility of weakening the unity of our main opponents. The rest is a matter of diplomacy, which Russia masters at one of the best levels in the modern world, Timofey Bordachev added.


Erik Simon