What's Trump's Game With Putin?

For some time now we’ve been emphasizing the importance that a relatively quick resolution to the disastrous forever wars will be for the entire Trump 2.0. Trump needs to get these wars behind him if he hopes—as he does—to maintain the momentum of his key MAGA agenda items. While the 3 year war in Ukraine may not seem like a “forever war”, in fact it is simply the hot phase of a war that began with the Clintons expanding NATO eastward. The object has long been to subjugate Russia for its natural resources and to use that control to bring China into subjugation as well.

One thing is clear in these early days of Trump 2.0—Trump understands all of the above. There is no other reason for him to be constantly bringing up the topic than that he understands its importance for MAGA. The campaign pledge to end the war quickly was not mere rhetoric. What has left many smart commentators on geopolitics, including Professor Mearsheimer, befuddled has been the seemingly counter intuitive approach Trump has taken. Basically, Trump has blustered, threatened, and made up his own facts in his calls for Russia to end the war. What’s going on?

I’ll provide first a short version the view I’m coming to, then turn to events of yesterday—especially the discussion of these developments between Chas Freeman and Danny Davis. What’s particularly interesting here is that, while Freeman is a liberal and no fan of Trump, he comes across as far more understanding of Trump’s approach than most more Trump friendly observers. The partial transcript—with some additional resources—will provide a check to my thesis.

I think we all know the situation. Putin owes Trump nothing—in fact, Putin has every reason to be aggrieved with regard to Trump in his first term and, therefore, distrustful this time around. Secondly, Trump has inherited a hand of number cards, while Putin’s hand is replete with aces and face cards—Trump has very little, if any, leverage. Finally, Trump’s bluster and the way he plays fast and loose with his “facts” seems designed to irk and alienate the Russians. In fact, much of what Trump and his clown NS appointees have been saying is no more than recycled Blinken and Not talking points—including trying to pressure the Chinese into abandoning Russia to go it alone in the face of US threats. The Russians and Chinese are completely versed in this divide and conquer strategy.

Despite all these factors working against Trump, Freeman—as we’ll see—believes that Trump has communicated to Putin one actual fact of paramount importance: Trump really, really, wants to end the war, and he is ready and very willing to talk to Putin. This is a total about face from previous US administrations—including, at least in some respects, the Trump 1.0 administration.

The second actual fact that Freeman notes—without necessarily realizing the full importance of it—is that, while reinventing history wholesale regarding nuclear arms control, Trump is signalling a willingness to enter into the big picture global security negotiations that Putin has always wanted. In other words, while Trump’s rhetoric may seem calculated to offend, it actually is offering important incentives to Putin to at least begin discussions.

What’s behind this, of course, is US domestic politics. Trump knows that he risks cratering approval if he simply walks away from Ukraine. What he needs is cover for doing that, and the promise of some sort of nuclear arms agreement with Russia just might provide that needed cover. Will Americans hold it against Trump that he was responsible during Trump 1.0 for trashing the existing agreements? The short answer is: No. The longer answer is, Even if critics bring that up Trump will simply respond, ‘The arms control agreements I unilaterally trashed were the worst agreements ever. I wasn’t a party to them, but now I’ve come up with the best agreement ever. I’m a winner, unlike the losers who came before me, and all of you who voted for me are winners, too.’ I think it’ll work. The trick is to get Putin to sign on. That involves convincing Putin that he won’t simply be a prop for Trump’s play to his domestic audience. It’s got to be real.

So, buckle up for Chas and Danny.

Ukraine Russia War SHOWDOWN w/Amb. Chas Freeman

Danny: Boy, this is a consequential issue right off the top, here--what's going to happen with Trump and Russia, because it has a lot to do with with American economic security, financial security, national security, and obviously a lot of ramifications for Europeans.

First of all I want to show you something that Trump said today. At first he was talking about some things with China, but then he pivots with China to talk about how he wants some help with Russia.

"I like President Xi very much. I've always liked him. We always had a very good relationship. Hopefully China can help us stop the war with Russia Ukraine. They have a great deal of power over that situation and we'll work with them. I mentioned that during our phone conversation with President Xi and hopefully we could work together and get that stopped. We'd like to see denuclearization. In fact with President Putin, prior to an election result which was frankly ridiculous [America, 2020], we were talking about denuclearization of our two countries, and China would have come along. China right now has a much smaller nuclear armament than us or field than us but they're they're going to be catching up at some point over the next four or five years. And I will tell you that President Putin really liked the idea of of cutting way back on nuclear. I think the rest of the world we would have gotten them to follow and China would have come along too. China also liked it.”

Danny says he finds all of the above “a little odd”. And it is. This is Trump shamelessly channeling Zhou talking points. How many times did Blinken and Yellen and Sullivan go to Beijing to try to BS the Chinese into siding with us against Putin? Note that, while Trump spoke to Xi, there is no hint of Xi’s response. Notice, too, how Trump then quickly pivots to the nuclear theme. Chas jumps all over that little bit of disingenuousness, BUT … he also points out that this is a possible bit of serious talk that gets beyond previous “empty talk”. It’s a step forward, a carrot, and Putin will understand that. The question is, how key will it prove to be?

Danny wants to know how serious this out-of-left-field playing of the nuclear card is.

Chas: No, this is entirely new. It's actually very encouraging because of course we have over the last Administration and its predecessor--Mr Trump himself--we have basically trashed the entire Arms Control effort which made us more secure. It reduces the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. I think this is tied into the resolution of the Ukraine issue in the sense that, if Ukraine were neutral, Russia would have far fewer fears about being attacked from the West and would not face the security challenges that it does, and it might then in fact be willing to resume the process of mutual de-escalation of nuclear forces. ...

Danny: I want to back up to Monday first of all with Trump because he gave some of his more, I guess, clearer statements on wanting to end the war in Ukraine and how he might go about doing that here's what he said on Monday:

Reporter: "How long do you think it would take to end that conflict?”

Trump: "I have to speak to President Putin. We're going to have to find out. He can't be thrilled. He's not doing so well. I mean, he's grinding it out but most people thought that war would have been over in about one week and now you're into three years, right? So he can't be thrilled. It's not making him look very good. Zelensky wants to make a deal. I don't know whether Putin does--he might not, I don't know. He should make a deal. I think he's destroying Russia.”

Again, Chas jumps all over the key point—which is NOT Trump’s invented “facts.”

Chas: Mr Putin has been very clear in his objectives from the beginning, and they don't have much to do with Ukraine except as part of a broader problem of insecurity in Europe. So he's asked for a broad discussion of some sort of new security architecture for Europe that would relieve the threat to Russia, while relieving any threat from Russia to the West. In that connection he wants Ukraine restored to the neutrality in which it was born and not to become a platform for the stationing of American troops and weapons right on the Ukrainian border and, finally, he wants the rights of the Russian speaking minority in Ukraine to be respected. Now, as Mr Trump indicated, this is three years of warfare. It may be taking its toll on the Russian army, but the Russian army is not the one that invaded Ukraine three years ago--it's vastly stronger. larger, better equipped. It has learned how to cope with the best weaponry that NATO and the United States could supply to Ukraine. If Mr Trump can't come up with a formula to address Mr Putin's concerns I think the war is going to continue."

Here’s how Geroman summarizes that:

>> Geroman: Russia does not want to talk about Ukraine - because there is nothing to talk about anymore.

Ukrainian forces will disintegrate - soon - and Russians will move further to the Dnjepr.

Russia wants to talk about a new security system / architecture in Europe / Eurasia as a whole.

People should start to understand this.

I think Trump’s pivot to the nuclear theme shows that he does understand that. The next exchange shows that Trump, who really needs to get this behind him, will need to get past Kellogg’s recycled Blinken and Nod talking points—thus, maybe, the pivot to the nuclear agenda?

Danny: Keith Kellogg [Trump's "envoy"] has said a couple of interesting things. He wants to have this wrapped up in 100 days, and one of the first features of it is that he said he is seeking a freeze of the conflict on the current line of contact--a ceasefire. Now, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, addressed that issue not long ago, and he says that's not going to happen.

Lavrov: "We cannot be satisfied with empty talk. So far all we've heard is talk about the need to come up with some kind of truce, and it's not particularly hidden that this truce is needed in order to gain time to continue pumping weapons into Ukraine. A truce is a road to nowhere."

Chas: The Russians don't want to have a DMZ in Ukraine dividing them from NATO. That just perpetuates the conflict and leaves a military confrontation which nobody really wants. So I think Mr Lavrov is faithfully respect reflecting Mr Putin's thinking. He wants a peace in Europe. He wants a reorganized security structure. He does not want a ceasefire--particularly when he has not completed the conquest of the four Russian-speaking oblasts. If you talk to the Russians, as I have on occasion, you find out they feel very passionately that they have spent a lot of blood and treasure to do what they've done--namely, to protect the Russian speakers in Ukraine and to lay the basis for a broader negotiation--and they're not going to yield. So if we are stuck on 'ceasefire' that guarantees an impasse, not progress.

Basically the Russians have not felt that there was any alternative to the use of force. This war began in February 2022 after the United States under the Blinken and Biden Administration declared that it would not discuss the issues with Russia. It refused negotiations. They understood very well what Russia was after was the end of a threat from Ukraine--[the Russians wanted] Ukrainian neutralization, Ukraine as a buffer and as a bridge between Russia and the rest of Europe. That's what they wanted, but we wouldn't talk about it and if we're not prepared to talk about that now I think the fighting is going to go on.

What Russia wanted was not news to the Zhou regime, and Trump certainly understood that as well, during Trump 1.0. Putin has been asking for these negotiations since at least 2007, maybe earlier. If Trump really had a good relationship with Putin and talked to him six times, he had to have understood Putin's concerns but, like all previous administrations, also refused to get into serious talks--talks that went beyond "empty talk". Instead, Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth in ways that no previous administration had done and imposed heavier sanctions. This is part of the impasse that Trump needs to break.

Danny: That leads us to the next thing I want to discuss here. Just look at what President Trump wants to do to try and get this to a negotiated settlement--it's a little unconventional, I think you can say in the most charitable way, but he posted this on Truth Social yesterday:

>>Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - Jan 22, 2025, 15:46 UTC

I’m not looking to hurt Russia. I love the Russian people, and always had a very good relationship with President Putin - and this despite the Radical Left’s Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX. We must never forget that Russia helped us win the Second World War, losing almost 60,000,000 lives in the process. All of that being said, I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. If we don’t make a “deal,” and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries. Let’s get this war, which never would have started if I were President, over with! We can do it the easy way, or the hard way - and the easy way is always better. It’s time to “MAKE A DEAL.” NO MORE LIVES SHOULD BE LOST!!!

Danny: So he's basically giving an ultimatum to the Russian side, saying, 'Hey, either you come along and do what I want or we can do it the hard way,’ which he didn't define completely. How do you think this message is being received in Russia?

Two points. First, the simple one, is that most of Russia’s trade with the US happens to be uranium used in reactors. Who gets hurt by tariffs? Is Trump really suggesting shutting down or rendering much more expensive the electricity generated in nuclear power plants? Probably not. The second point, Chas gets beyond that to the important part.

Chas: I think it's probably being ridiculed. The level of Russian trade with the United States is something like 350 million a year--it's almost nothing. Tariffs aren't going to do a damn thing to put pressure on Russia. It's already under ferocious sanctions from the United States [many put on by Trump himself] and the West, and it has reoriented itself toward [BRICS and beyond], so the alternative would be to up the ante in terms of more weapons for Ukraine. The important part of the Trump message, I think, is not the threat--which will be dismissed as insignificant--but the the declaration that he *really* wants to get this war ended. I think Mr Putin wants to get it ended, too, but he has terms and he's in a better position to enforce those terms than we are.

Danny: I've been reading some stuff--right before we came online--from some of the Russian media and there was some ridicule of it, because there's a lot less leverage on the Trump's side than there is on Putin's side. A member of the Russian Duma today was saying, 'Hey, listen, this is just some kind of imitation of openness, frankness, and threats from Trump instead of serious positions like President Putin formulated in his congratulations on the day of Trump's inauguration. Trump doesn't seem to know what to do, and threatening us with ultimatums, scaring us with tariffs, is empty talk.'

Trump wants to get out but he doesn't have that leverage over Putin. Trump has made this threat, 'We can do it the hard way or the easy way.' What if Putin goes, 'Okay, what's the hard way?' What is Trump gonna do?

>>Senseless barking at Moscow, as Trump has done so far, will be responded to with a rather bored yawn

"The Kremlin is not impressed by United States President Donald Trump’s threat to impose new sanctions against Russia if it does not agree to strike a peace deal with Ukraine.

"We do not see any particular new elements here," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told Russian media Thursday. Peskov added that Trump “liked sanctions” and used them often during his first presidential term.

“Russia is ready for an equal and careful dialogue with the United States, which we had during Trump's first term," Peskov said, according to Russian independent media outlet Meduza. "We are waiting for signals that have not yet been received."

Chas: The Biden Administration basically started this war, and doubled down on it, in the effort to isolate and weaken Russia--which didn't happen. That leaves Mr Trump with a real problem. In that connection he's right to say, as he did in the answer to the press question when he was sitting at his desk, that he has to talk to Mr Putin. The fact that he's willing to do that is already a great advance because the Biden Administration never did. Whether his team is up to that or not is another issue, but we're not in a position to muscle the Russians on Ukraine, and it was a grave error to start to believe we ever could.

Danny: Some people approach negotiations like, 'I'm gonna ask for a lot more than I want so that I can pare back to here.' Is Putin saying something like that or is Putin saying, 'No, really, this is what we're going to have to have.'

Putin: "What we need is not just a ceasefire. We need peace--a long lasting peace. We don't have preconditions for talks. We are ready to engage in a conversation without preconditions, but there has to be a basis of something that we agreed upon during the talks in Istanbul in late 2022 and based, of course, on the realities on the ground at this moment."

Chas: I don't think the Russians necessarily approach negotiations as you do when you buy a rug in the bazaar, you know, where you state an opening position that is completely unrealistic. I don't think that's the case here. I think we have to take him seriously.

So there are some glimmers of hope. Trump may be playing his usual game, and I suspect that Putin understands this. Recall that Putin has said in the past that he has dealt with three US presidents and it’s always the same—it’s always about US politics. That suggests that Putin could give Trump what Trump needs if Trump will reciprocate. My guess is that Trump will be more than willing to do so. He will reach for that like a drowning man who has been tossed a life preserver. Then, it’ll be on to, How to avoid a Middle East war, which would be a bigger threat to MAGA than any war in Ukraine.