The first round of phone negotiations between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin (on March 18), as well as between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (on March 19), did not result in even a partial ceasefire. They agreed to “continue talking”? About what and for what purpose?
Putin is using “Trump” as his trump card
President Donald Trump (an odd coincidence: “trump” in English means a trump card), who crafted an image of himself as a deal-making master, has pegged one of his most important campaign promises to the whims of a master of KGB-FSB psychological operations. Having promised to end, in his words, the “terrible killings,” deliberately refusing to distinguish between the aggressor and the victim, he seems to have hoped to appease a malevolent dictator and aggressor. What the business-deal virtuoso used to appease the master of provocations can only be guessed from a few scraps of information about that conversation.
While writing this article (March 21–22), I searched the official White House website for an official statement regarding the phone call with Putin—and could not find any. Neither by browsing the “News” section chronologically, nor by using internet searches for “Trump – Putin phone call.” There is a press release about the conversation with Zelensky, but the one with Putin has vanished!
Does this lack of an official press release imply that even Trump himself no longer considers these talks to be quite as “wonderful” as he initially claimed?
On the official website of the Russian dictator, everything is in perfect order: the announcement of the call with Trump is right there in its chronological place, complete with the usual language about a “detailed and sincere exchange of views,” “commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict,” and of course the need to address the “root causes of the crisis” while taking into account “Russia’s legitimate security interests.”
Naturally, Putin pointed to the “serious risks associated with the unwillingness to make agreements on the part of the Kyiv regime,” which supposedly has “repeatedly sabotaged and violated the agreements reached” (when was that? And who actually violated the Minsk agreements—drafted ambiguously on purpose to lure the Ukrainian side into a trap? Was it not the newly elected President Zelensky who unilaterally decided to carry them out by withdrawing troops from four sections of the then contact line, thereby later facilitating the full-scale invasion and partial takeover of Ukraine’s south?).
“They noted the barbaric terrorist crimes committed by Ukrainian militants against the civilian population of the Kursk region” (apparently confusing it with Bucha, where it was by no means “Ukrainian militants” who committed unimaginable atrocities?).
“It was emphasized that a key condition to prevent the conflict from escalating and to pursue a political-diplomatic resolution is a complete halt to foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence to Kyiv”—yet not a word about a reciprocal obligation to stop supplies to Russia from North Korea, Iran, and China.
However, I believe the most crucial aspect of the negotiations are the brief, vague notes (I apologize for the long quote, but in my opinion, this is where the main risks—if not outright dangers—for the United States and the world order lie):
Putin and Trump “also touched on other international agenda items, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. They will make joint efforts to stabilize the situation in crisis hotspots and establish cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and global security issues. This, in turn, will help improve the general atmosphere of Russian-American relations. One positive example is the joint vote at the UN on the resolution concerning the Ukrainian conflict (yes, exactly! The U.S. voted in solidarity not only with the Russian Federation, which the majority of world countries recognize as the aggressor, but also with North Korea and Iran; Israel, in my view, was forced to join this ‘coalition’ because it is completely dependent on Trump, whereas under Biden it either abstained or supported recognizing Russia as an aggressor)! – N.B.)
There was mutual interest expressed in normalizing bilateral relations, given the special responsibility of Russia and the United States for ensuring global security and stability. In that context, they discussed a wide range of areas in which our two countries could cooperate. A number of ideas were discussed aimed at potentially developing mutually beneficial collaboration in the economy and energy sector.”
All U.S. presidents from George W. Bush to Biden have begun their dealings with post-Soviet Russia in a similar vein, while consistently downplaying Russia’s real destabilizing role in precisely those regions: infiltrating them with FSB-GRU-directed terrorist groups, providing covert or sometimes overt support to local “partisans” like the Houthis, and openly endorsing Hamas and Hezbollah. Every U.S. president believed that constructive proposals about mutual responsibility for “stability” in these regions would deter Russia from its traditionally destructive role there.
As for proposals regarding nuclear weapons control—there’s hardly any point in analyzing them (indeed, every U.S. president has included such proposals in attempts to “reset” with Russia). Everyone has already seen who has been threatening to use nuclear weapons ever since at least the start of the war with Ukraine in 2014, and continues to threaten the world with them. Hoping that such proposals would deter Russia from further blackmail is more than naive; it is an open invitation for Russia to continue such actions.
Thus, Putin is putting forward exactly the same demands and “proposals” he made to previous U.S. presidents. Nothing new!
Right now, Trump is stepping on the same rake, except unlike his predecessors, who were merely naive but did not abandon basic American values, he is prepared to sacrifice those values to the Russian dictator. Why?
Why has Trump, through his campaign promises and subsequent actions, placed himself in complete dependence on the capricious Russian dictator and ignored the experiences of all his predecessors?
And most importantly, can we seriously expect that Trump, acting as a mediator, will achieve the cessation of what he calls “brutal killings” without identifying who is actually at fault for those killings?
So far, we watch in horror as Trump, with zeal worthy of a better cause, tries to destroy the very foundation that upholds the United States. Is he doing it deliberately to appease Putin, or is it a side effect and his actual intentions differ?
So arises a whole host of questions that at first glance seem unrelated. The long-overdue reduction of a bloated government apparatus—or an attempt to break down the system of governance? Organizing the U.S. information space in adherence to the First Amendment—or an attempt to establish control over it? Impartial, equidistant mediation in the Russian-Ukrainian war—or an attempt to dismantle the existing world order and push it to the brink, beyond which unchecked territorial claims may begin?
Let us try to make sense of the fog of half-truths and chaotic actions—at least up to a point.
Testing the Powers, Checks, and Balances
From his very first day in office, both America and the world have watched—some in horror, others in admiration—how the 47th president has been acting as though, in the words of the Russian poet Osip Mandelstam about Stalin, he “hammers out decree after decree.” Indeed, as if he were Stalin, Trump rules the country by issuing one presidential order after another, sometimes a dozen a day, paying no heed to the other branches of government—legislative or judicial.
After the abolishment of USAID came the turn of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—the only state-funded U.S. media outlets that provided an American informational presence around the globe and stood up to dictators by sharing truthful information. Moreover, according to many journalists, these outlets set the highest journalistic standards and were among the most reliable sources of news.
Nevertheless, Trump and his supporters justified cutting federal funding for these outlets by claiming that they were supposedly “taken over by radical leftist forces.” Whether that’s true or not is a big question; the answer is more likely no—both outlets strive to provide the most objective coverage possible from every viewpoint. However, staff members at these outlets raised the matter from another angle: do such arguments not violate the First Amendment’s principle of freedom of speech? (After all, no other president—Democrat or Republican—had ever proposed shutting down any media, including Fox News, which Obama personally deemed “ultra-right” but never tried to close!)
From the first day he entered the White House, Trump, acting through a newly established body (either a ministry or an advisory board)—the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency”—has been firing government employees and officials; at this point, the total has reached into the hundreds of thousands.
An article in USA Today provides a detailed chronology of these mass firings and their appeals in court. From it emerges a picture of actions aimed at drastically downsizing the government apparatus, but in an extremely inconsistent way, lacking a strategy for how and by how much to shrink it. Such actions have led to the suspension of highly important government services, including assistance for war veterans, forecasting of natural disasters, and the protection of national parks. And dismissals carried out without regard for labor laws have resulted in numerous lawsuits.
The cuts extended to the “pillars” of the American welfare system: Social Security, Medicare (federal health insurance for individuals over 65), and especially Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes, funded jointly at the federal and state levels). Additionally, right in the midst of tax filing season, thousands of employees of the Internal Revenue Service were dismissed. These measures anger voters in both parties, as they affect the daily lives of millions of Americans. At every constituent meeting, people openly express their dissatisfaction.
However, the principal standoff between the White House and everyone harmed by the dismissals, cuts, and arbitrary actions is playing out in the courts. In both chambers of Congress, the Republican majority is entirely loyal to Trump; even the “Reagan wing” does not protest, as it is in the minority. The Democrats are also in the minority and did not even use the opportunity to derail Trump’s plan for government funding through the end of the current fiscal year, fearing it might lead to a full-blown government shutdown for an indefinite period.
Under these circumstances, only the judiciary has taken on the role of the final element in the nearly destroyed system of checks and balances. It can be controlled by the president only partially—through the Justice Department and the network of prosecutors. Through his “own” Attorney General, Pam Bondi, Trump has, of course, fired all prosecutors who had any connection not only to his criminal cases but also to every participant involved in the attempted coup on January 6, 2021.
He also revoked security clearances from all his top political opponents, from Hillary Clinton to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger (both former Republican members of Congress who took part in his impeachments). This, by the way, shows the extent to which a president can exact revenge on his adversaries: in more significant ways, he cannot harm them.
Judges answer to no one. This is precisely what most enrages Trump and his supporters. At present, they are looking for ways to pressure the defiant judges. Among other ideas, they proposed the “impeachment” of judges. The Supreme Court has refused even to consider it.
In short, in this endless tug-of-war over presidential decrees, the courts have emerged as the main power. Experts are already calling the situation a “constitutional crisis.” The crux of it is whether it will be possible to redefine the boundaries between the powers of the presidency, Congress, and the judiciary.
Trump’s Enchanted Spiral
Having briefly outlined Trump’s actions and the resulting constitutional crisis, let’s return to the question: why is the 47th president doing this? Why is he throwing government administration into chaos? Why is he eliminating or downsizing units in the intelligence community that focused on countering specifically Russian threats, including cyber threats (I addressed this in my previous article)? Why is he acting in both domestic and foreign policy as if he has some arrangement with Putin?
Some experts, especially defectors from post-Soviet agencies, argue that Trump was recruited by the KGB back in 1987 and has since been used as a “trump card” in various schemes—from Russian oligarchs buying up the real estate developed by Trump (thus rescuing him from bankruptcy) to his nomination for president of the most powerful country, the eternal rival of those “post-Soviet” agencies.
Recently, persistent rumors in different circles claim that Donald Trump is under significant influence and even “under the thumb” of Russian intelligence services. Specifically, he is accused of:
- Having repeatedly accepted assistance from the Chekists (first the USSR, then post-Soviet Russia) to get elected to the highest office in the U.S., thus obliging him to “repay” the support he received.
- Relying on funds and credit guarantees from individuals connected to the KGB-FSB whenever he faced bankruptcy or needed capital for his risky business ventures.
- Being “bound by blood” to Putin concerning the horrific Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023. According to these rumors, the attack was in part orchestrated “for” Trump, ensuring his victory in the 2024 elections.
Additional evidence cited in support of this version includes scattered references to Russian cryptocurrency channels purportedly used by Hamas militants, as well as reports of possible training by “Wagner” mercenaries. While there is little direct confirmation, and Israel remains extremely cautious in commenting on Russia’s role, many observers believe that the sharp escalation in the Middle East and the overall uncertainty helped doom the Democrats and paved the way for Trump’s return to power.
Again, these are all rumors and conjectures, but they stubbornly circulate among American political strategists and various “post-Soviet” analysts alike, adding new shades to the question of whether Trump might have been—or still might be—“the Kremlin’s trump card.”
In my opinion, however, even if Trump’s ties to Russia were never proven, he would likely have acted in the same way. Because from his first presidency, his actions drove him into an enchanted spiral. From his first campaign speeches in 2015–2016, he began “subtly” emphasizing his “good relationship” with the Russian leader—statements then designed to contradict his political rival Hillary Clinton (a perfectly legitimate political tactic) and to rally American pro-Russian supporters around himself. However, they instantly aroused suspicion among his adversaries, primarily Democratic members of Congress, who needed only the slightest reason to fan the flames of political conflict. But it was even more significant that his words and actions triggered suspicion among independent experts, journalists, and intelligence officials. This led to the first investigation of “possible collusion” between Trump’s campaign and Russia—Special Counsel Mueller’s probe. It concluded that Russia had interfered in the electoral process, but, in the end, that finding was neutralized at the final stage, never answering the main question of the entire investigation: was there collusion or not? Instead, there were vague statements about the sitting president’s immunity from criminal prosecution.
Since then, Trump began to adopt a self-defense strategy: the best defense is offense. He started a war against everyone who investigated or merely criticized him—attacks on the media, journalists, Democrats, the judiciary, and so on. The further this went, the more chaotic and harsh both sides’ actions became—and ultimately this war became one of the key factors that led to his defeat in 2020.
Since then, the spiral of mutual hostility, confrontations, and lawsuits has only grown wider. And since a key element of that spiral were accusations about Trump’s ties to Russia, he increasingly pointed the spear of his personal vendetta at all elements of U.S. institutional structures that confront Russia as a national security threat. Either Trump genuinely believed that his political adversaries in both parties were exaggerating the “Russian threat” to the U.S., or he cunningly downplayed the threat to break free from the spiral—but the result is exactly what we see: his personal fears and thirst for revenge joined forces with every pro-Russian segment that exists in the U.S., in a symbiotic relationship. Trump personally has a vested interest in tearing down the entire “deep state” that dared question him. Since that supposedly nonexistent “deep state” (in reality, professional intelligence officers, FBI investigators, and watchdogs who combat fraud in the tax system, etc.) also included those who identified Russia as a national security threat, it logically followed for Trump to systematically dismantle this “deep state.” And if that also destroys the system of checks and balances—the fundamental principles of American democracy—so be it! Which is precisely Putin’s dearest dream.
Such a spiral offers no exit other than destroying it. So, will Trump succeed in tearing it down? Or, on the contrary, will it remain standing, leading to Trump’s eventual downfall or at least forcing him to slow his destructive zeal because the system of checks and balances withstands? The very existence of the American democratic system now hinges on how this constitutional crisis is resolved.
The Passionate Mediator
Ultimately, how the constitutional crisis in the U.S.—brought on in part by Trump’s spiral (alongside other more objective processes that have led to a global clash between Russia and the growing troubles in democratic systems)—gets resolved will determine Trump’s posture toward the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Currently, he is trapped in a narrow corridor between Scylla (his relationship with Russia and all the components of the U.S. institutional framework that oppose Russian aggression) and Charybdis (his promises to end this war). According to various polls, the majority of the American public opposes abandoning Ukraine, as they see that as forsaking America’s allies and bankrupting the nation’s credibility. So Trump cannot openly cave to Putin’s demands.
Yet is he interested in ensuring Ukraine’s victory? In my view, not in the least. First, it was his political opponent Joe Biden who proclaimed that as his strategic goal, and Trump does not care if Biden’s declaration didn’t come to fruition—partly due to the Biden administration’s own indecision. Trump wants nothing in common with Biden, since from Trump’s perspective, Biden is to blame for both the outbreak of the war and for failing to end it. Hence, no talk of Ukraine’s victory! No mention of who actually started the war—only about “putting an end to the killings”!
Second, Trump does not believe Ukraine’s victory would mean Russia’s defeat, and consequently, it would not free him from the spiral described above. If Russia cannot be defeated, Putin’s spiral of pressure on him will only tighten further.
What remains for him, then? That which some political scientists call a “dignified draw”—though there would be little “dignity” in it for either Ukraine or Russia. Each side will focus primarily on its own survival, but for Ukraine, survival equates to its very existence as an independent state.
There are far too many factors at play to predict how events will unfold. They will fluctuate like a stormy ocean between two extremes—between the best-case scenario (a temporary freeze of active combat wherever the front lines stand, resulting from Trump pressuring both sides, if he is successfully constrained at home and if both warring parties reach exhaustion) and the worst scenario… reminiscent of what occurred in the 1930s (should Trump succeed in toppling the system of checks and balances).
P.S. I have not touched on the complex factor of Europe—that requires a separate article. Here, I will only note: Europe already senses a visceral threat from Russia. It is ready to support Ukraine (as far as it can) and defend itself, but it does not wish to break ties with the U.S. entirely. At this point, it is using every possible means to prevent Trump from throwing it at Putin’s feet.
Author: Nadiya Banchyk