The Putin-Trump conversation went well, according to reports – regardless of the discussed topics
Picture a scenario where the leaders of Russia and the United States engage in a fruitful discussion.
TroibNews 
Imagine the Russian and American leaders engaging in a significant 2.5-hour conversation just two months ago.
The presidents of Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, recently had an extended phone call. Despite expectations, the world did not undergo any dramatic changes. In other words, those anticipating immediate sensational developments must have been let down.
To clarify, Odessa has not been ceded to Russia, Moscow has not renounced its principal war goals such as ensuring Ukraine’s neutrality, and the dialogue did not yield a finalized framework for territorial changes. To be candid, those who were hoping for such outcomes could only blame themselves.
They have overlooked the broader context: the critical fact that these discussions occurred and were evidently successful, marking a significant moment in Russian-American relations. Lasting almost two-and-a-half hours—the longest recent telephone exchange between the two countries' leaders, as highlighted by Russian commentators—the conversation encompassed a range of topics. It will be noted as another landmark in the evolving détente between Moscow and Washington.
For those who have adjusted their expectations due to rapid changes in the geopolitical landscape, it’s important to remember that less than six months ago, before Trump’s re-election to the American presidency, what just transpired would have seemed unimaginable. Just two months back, prior to Trump’s second inauguration, many analysts would still have described such a call as highly unlikely. Even after that inauguration, skeptics remained cautious or pessimistic, believing the entrenched interests in the American deep state and prevalent Russophobia would hinder any substantial rapprochement.
Now, however, it’s evident that this is happening. The discussion has shifted from “could this possibly be real” to “it’s real and what are the consequences?”
At this juncture, our understanding is limited, but two significant conclusions can be drawn: First, the US and Russia will keep the substance of these negotiations private. Russian evening news has indicated that Moscow intends to continue and extend the bilateral dialogue. The term “bilateral” is particularly crucial; as some have predicted, the era of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” – which was always a disingenuous phrase – is over. NATO-EU Europe remains excluded, which is favorable news.
The second takeaway is that Moscow is not making meaningful concessions. While it is true that Putin, as a gesture of goodwill, agreed to a mutual 30-day pause in attacks on energy infrastructure with Ukraine and expressed a willingness to discuss Black Sea maritime traffic arrangements, this is where leniency ends. Confirming Russia’s intention to work on “complex” and “long-term” solutions, Putin made it abundantly clear that Moscow will not entertain anything less, particularly any truces that might serve merely as delays for Ukraine and its Western allies.
Additionally, the Russian president reiterated that the fundamental causes of the conflict need to be addressed. This includes NATO’s efforts to integrate Ukraine, as well as the alliance's aggressive eastward expansion post-Cold War. Those in the West who tend to disregard Moscow’s perspective should remember that, from Russia’s viewpoint, the nature of Ukraine’s governance, its treatment of minorities, and its militarization also play significant roles in these root causes.
As a result, NATO-EU Europeans hoping that Ukraine might lose some territory but still be reorganized into what Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calls a “steel porcupine” will likely be disappointed. Russia is committed to dismantling any military threats on its western border. Should EU-NATO members attempt to replace US support for Ukraine, the conflict is likely to persist—without US backing and potentially amidst a flourishing Russian-American détente.
Putin’s remarks during the conversation, as reported by Russian evening news, reinforce these firm boundaries. The Russian president indicated that a general 30-day ceasefire, proposed by Washington, hinges on several “essential” conditions: effective oversight along the entire frontline, cessation of arms transfers to the Ukrainian military from abroad, and a halt to forced mobilizations within Ukraine.
It was emphasized that a “key” condition for preventing further escalation—note that Russia does not rule out this option—and for achieving a diplomatic resolution is the complete cessation of foreign military supplies and intelligence to Kiev.
Concerns about Kiev’s reliability in negotiations and the war crimes attributed to its forces were acknowledged. Even a seemingly conciliatory comment had its caveat: while Putin stated that Russia is willing to consider “humanitarian” aspects regarding Ukrainian troops encircled in its Kursk region, this is contingent upon their surrender. That standard aligns with basic international expectations, and those seeking special treatment for these units have been informed that there will be no exceptions. Kiev has acknowledged its prior misuse of negotiations in Istanbul back in spring 2022 for military advantage, and Moscow is resolute in preventing any repetition of such tactics.
Ultimately, the conversation can be contextualized within two major historical frameworks: the conclusion of the Ukraine War, which may or may not materialize, with Russia asserting that it will only end on its terms—a common stance of victorious powers. Simultaneously, the US appears to have tacitly accepted this outcome. In terms of historical context number two, the new American leadership seems to prioritize a policy of normalization, essentially détente and cooperation with Russia, over the West's proxy conflict in Ukraine. And rightly so.
Anna Muller contributed to this article for TROIB News
The presidents of Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, recently had an extended phone call. Despite expectations, the world did not undergo any dramatic changes. In other words, those anticipating immediate sensational developments must have been let down.
To clarify, Odessa has not been ceded to Russia, Moscow has not renounced its principal war goals such as ensuring Ukraine’s neutrality, and the dialogue did not yield a finalized framework for territorial changes. To be candid, those who were hoping for such outcomes could only blame themselves.
They have overlooked the broader context: the critical fact that these discussions occurred and were evidently successful, marking a significant moment in Russian-American relations. Lasting almost two-and-a-half hours—the longest recent telephone exchange between the two countries' leaders, as highlighted by Russian commentators—the conversation encompassed a range of topics. It will be noted as another landmark in the evolving détente between Moscow and Washington.
For those who have adjusted their expectations due to rapid changes in the geopolitical landscape, it’s important to remember that less than six months ago, before Trump’s re-election to the American presidency, what just transpired would have seemed unimaginable. Just two months back, prior to Trump’s second inauguration, many analysts would still have described such a call as highly unlikely. Even after that inauguration, skeptics remained cautious or pessimistic, believing the entrenched interests in the American deep state and prevalent Russophobia would hinder any substantial rapprochement.
Now, however, it’s evident that this is happening. The discussion has shifted from “could this possibly be real” to “it’s real and what are the consequences?”
At this juncture, our understanding is limited, but two significant conclusions can be drawn: First, the US and Russia will keep the substance of these negotiations private. Russian evening news has indicated that Moscow intends to continue and extend the bilateral dialogue. The term “bilateral” is particularly crucial; as some have predicted, the era of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” – which was always a disingenuous phrase – is over. NATO-EU Europe remains excluded, which is favorable news.
The second takeaway is that Moscow is not making meaningful concessions. While it is true that Putin, as a gesture of goodwill, agreed to a mutual 30-day pause in attacks on energy infrastructure with Ukraine and expressed a willingness to discuss Black Sea maritime traffic arrangements, this is where leniency ends. Confirming Russia’s intention to work on “complex” and “long-term” solutions, Putin made it abundantly clear that Moscow will not entertain anything less, particularly any truces that might serve merely as delays for Ukraine and its Western allies.
Additionally, the Russian president reiterated that the fundamental causes of the conflict need to be addressed. This includes NATO’s efforts to integrate Ukraine, as well as the alliance's aggressive eastward expansion post-Cold War. Those in the West who tend to disregard Moscow’s perspective should remember that, from Russia’s viewpoint, the nature of Ukraine’s governance, its treatment of minorities, and its militarization also play significant roles in these root causes.
As a result, NATO-EU Europeans hoping that Ukraine might lose some territory but still be reorganized into what Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calls a “steel porcupine” will likely be disappointed. Russia is committed to dismantling any military threats on its western border. Should EU-NATO members attempt to replace US support for Ukraine, the conflict is likely to persist—without US backing and potentially amidst a flourishing Russian-American détente.
Putin’s remarks during the conversation, as reported by Russian evening news, reinforce these firm boundaries. The Russian president indicated that a general 30-day ceasefire, proposed by Washington, hinges on several “essential” conditions: effective oversight along the entire frontline, cessation of arms transfers to the Ukrainian military from abroad, and a halt to forced mobilizations within Ukraine.
It was emphasized that a “key” condition for preventing further escalation—note that Russia does not rule out this option—and for achieving a diplomatic resolution is the complete cessation of foreign military supplies and intelligence to Kiev.
Concerns about Kiev’s reliability in negotiations and the war crimes attributed to its forces were acknowledged. Even a seemingly conciliatory comment had its caveat: while Putin stated that Russia is willing to consider “humanitarian” aspects regarding Ukrainian troops encircled in its Kursk region, this is contingent upon their surrender. That standard aligns with basic international expectations, and those seeking special treatment for these units have been informed that there will be no exceptions. Kiev has acknowledged its prior misuse of negotiations in Istanbul back in spring 2022 for military advantage, and Moscow is resolute in preventing any repetition of such tactics.
Ultimately, the conversation can be contextualized within two major historical frameworks: the conclusion of the Ukraine War, which may or may not materialize, with Russia asserting that it will only end on its terms—a common stance of victorious powers. Simultaneously, the US appears to have tacitly accepted this outcome. In terms of historical context number two, the new American leadership seems to prioritize a policy of normalization, essentially détente and cooperation with Russia, over the West's proxy conflict in Ukraine. And rightly so.
Anna Muller contributed to this article for TROIB News
