Trump and Putin’s telephone conversation: courtesy instead of arrangements?

So what became clear after that call? What did the parties agree (or not agreed? UA.news political observer Nikita Trachuk Together with the experts he dealt with the question.

Very partial truce, exchange of prisoners, continuation of communication: key in conversation

The most interesting in the Prescribes of the White House and the Kremlin is not only strange conciseness, but also the difference in grades. Let’s try to highlight the main thing and compare the texts with each other.

First – Both sides praise each other, declare great progress, good communication and so on. This is a positive point but too general. Although the press releases are almost identical.

Second – Both presidents did not start a briefing after dialogue, for them the media spoke press service. And if it is a common thing for Putin, then he visited him personally to go to the microphone and communicate with journalists, but for some reason he changed his mind.

Third – Both Washington, and Moscow want to end the war not with freezing of hostilities, but a long -term peace, which should make it impossible to restore bloodshed. Here, the Russians talk about the need to “eliminate the root causes of war”, and Americans say that the war “did not have to start” at all, and that it is better to spend money not on fighting, but for the benefit of their own peoples.

Fourth And the most important-a 30-day truce, if it works, will be very partial. It will only be struck on the energy system. According to Putin, he has already given a corresponding assignment to his troops. In addition, the Russian Federation says solely about the consent to stop the blows on energy, while the United States is writing about energy and infrastructure in general, and the start of negotiations regarding the Marine Truce. There is none of this other than energy objects in the Kremlin’s presbyal.

Fifth – The parties agreed to immediately begin negotiations in the Middle East with respect to further steps to settle. The US side notes that this meeting will take place on March 23. Here we see the merger of several geopolitical problems – Ukraine and the Middle East – in one. Especially in the context that Trump and Putin have agreed to work on a specific Middle Eastern issues.

Sixth – The Kremlin agrees to further settlement only if mobilization stops in Ukraine, and Western partners will cease to supply weapons. At the same time, the Russian Federation, of course, did not say that it would suspend its own military production and a set of contractors for service. In the Prescribe of the White House about the conditions of Moscow, nothing is said.

Seventh – The next day, March 19, there was a great exchange of prisoners. The parties were changed in “175 to 175” format. Russia also handed us 23 seriously wounded soldiers. This is called the Russians “gesture of goodwill.”

Eighth And the most strange – Putin and Trump want to organize hockey matches in their countries between national hockey leagues. This thesis is knocked out of the overall tone of the conversation and raises questions. It is not fully understood what it is and why it is needed. Apparently, this case can be seen as an element of some humanitarian discharge.

In addition to the above, Russia and the United States have agreed on a number of other issues of world politics. In particular, weapons control, continuation of strategic stability dialogue, the situation in the Middle East, the nuclear program of Iran, etc.

Trump Zelensky’s phone call is also known for the US side to inform Kiev about negotiations with Putin. It took place on Wednesday evening. It should be noted that the leaders of America and Ukraine have not personally talked since the White House quarrel, and this is their first official contact.

The main conclusion – agreed to negotiate

There is not always a working one, but the law of the media genre: when too much hayp is pumped around some event and very high expectations are formed – in reality, it often does not happen as it seems. Actually, in the case of Trump and Putin’s telephone conversation, everything turned out in this way. We have not seen or heard any major sensations or loud breakthroughs.

In general, these negotiations can be evaluated with restrained optimism. Why optimism? Because it is obvious that there are no insoluble and fundamental contradictions between the parties. Therefore, their further communication and the gradual discharge of relationships does not interfere globally.

On a number of issues of the Kremlin and the White House, there are at least coherent. Where there is no coincidence of views, there is a desire to work further. Some problems will have to work for a long time and difficult. But there is no fundamental fundamental, which would not allow any further negotiations. That is, communication continues, and this is an optimistic moment.

Why then is this optimism restrained? Because in fact in 2.5 hours – and it was the longest conversation between the US and Russia presidents in the whole history – everything that the parties came to, it “agreed to agree.” At least that’s what you look like when you analyze public rhetoric.

To say in a technical sense, American preselizes were very common and short. The Russian version is more detailed, with deciphering and explaining many points.

And she is very hostile to Ukraine. In particular, the Kremlin spoke about the “unseenability” of Kiev and accused the “militants of the Kiev regime” of alleged “crimes against civilians”. Well, somewhere, and here-whose would, somehow say, was silent, and whose silent would be silent.

That is, in a dry residue from a positive for Ukraine – it is possible to cease fire in the context of energy, the return of prisoners and the overall positive tone of dialogue between the US and the Russian Federation. This is important to prevent some sharp escalations. However, on that and the sun It is difficult to allocate something more of what we have in public space. And the war, meanwhile, continues.

Expert opinions

Political scientist, director of the Ukrainian Institute of Policy Ruslan Bortnik He believes that during a telephone conversation between President Trump and Putin, both parties showed high interest in improving relationships, and discussed a wide range of difficult issues that need to be addressed. At the same time, there are significant differences between the positions of the White House and the Kremlin.

“In 2.5 hours of negotiation, the leaders discussed about 15 topics and reached certain steps towards their solution. This conversation has become the fifth contact of a high level in the last month, which indicates the awareness of both parties about each other’s positions. The lack of a joint statement or press conference may testify not only to the complexity of the topics discussed, but also to keep some of the negotiation details of the secret to achieve better results.

Personated statements have many common features in the issues of goals and key points, but are distinguished. Both sides emphasized the desire for peace, ceasefire and stabilization of the situation in the world, which indicates a mutual understanding of the need to reduce tensions. At the same time, Russia paid special attention to the issue of Ukraine, demanding the cessation of mobilization, supply of Western weapons and the transfer of intelligence data as a condition for a complete truce and a further peace agreement. Moscow also accused Kyiv of misconduct. The White House escaped such statements by focusing on a positive mood about peace and cooperation. The Russian side also emphasized the humanitarian aspects, including the safety of Ukrainian prisoners of war and the exchange of prisoners, ”Bortnik comments.

According to the expert, one of the key practical results of the negotiations was the consent of the Russian Federation to the US proposal for a 30-day truce in terms of energy in energy infrastructure. This provision was referred to in the statements of both parties, and the Kremlin stressed that the Russian military received the appropriate order immediately after the negotiations.

“The parties also agreed to continue the dialogue on the armistice in the Black Sea. Both of these ideas, which involve the gradual cessation of hostilities, were previously presented by French President Macron and President Zelensky. This approach is a tactical victory for these leaders, and allows the United States to avoid accusations that negotiations are happening without the participation of Ukraine and Europe. It should be noted that the list of issues discussed in the context of war in Ukraine went beyond the standard ceasefire agreement and actually set a frame for a potential peace treaty, which was confirmed by the President of the United States in his later statement … This can be considered diplomatic success for Russia, at the same time. Bortnik.

An expert on international issues Yulia Osmolovskaya He believes that a bad role in the conversation of two presidents has played high expectations of society. At the same time, these expectations were produced by Donald Trump himself.

“Everyone expected the reaction that the presidents would say, whether it would be possible to reach a full ceasefire according to the US proposal. This is also correlated on the G7 statement, in which they congratulated Ukraine’s readiness for unconditional ceasefire and expected the same from Russia on similar conditions – that is, without any additional conditions. At the same time, the Russian Federation has already hinted that nothing would work out so much, because there are “nuances”. From what we have – it is worth comparing two statements and looking for common things. And here is a big and great discrepancy between the position of Russia and America.

The American text looks more moderate, objective and informed. They talk about the need to trade further through political and diplomatic settlement, they have agreed with the Russians to stop the strikes on infrastructure and energy. The US statement further speaks of technical negotiations on the safety of navigation in the Black Sea. After that, negotiations should be held on the conditions of complete ceasefire, and only then – determining the modality of the general peace agreement. But the Russian side, in its statement, threw everything she wanted, adding all her grades there. It is very important to understand: in the Russian statement, there is no fact that the parties have agreed on a key prerequisite for regulation – termination of military assistance and providing intelligence data to Ukraine. There is a phrase that Moscow emphasized. But on the fact of the arrangements not recorded, these are “hotels” that have not supported in the USA”, – says Osmolovskaya.

The expert acknowledges that the Russian side raises important technical issues. For example, the technical support of the ceasefire mode throughout the front line is more than 1000 kilometers.

“Russia also advocates the cessation of supply of weapons and mobilization in Ukraine. But it cannot work unilaterally, as well as the Russian Federation. That is, parity must be observed here if we discuss this requirement seriously … In general, we can talk about careful optimism. The US and the Russian Federation, as can be seen from their official statements, did not agree in all, Russian and American positions do not coincide everywhere, there are differences in the interpretation of agreements. The main thing is that in the White House statement they say that it is a “war in Ukraine”. And Russia is trying to constantly emphasize that it is a “conflict around Ukraine”. Trump in his post on social networks writes that there should be an end to this war between Russia and Ukraine. That is, the US President has a clear understanding that this is the war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, not some internal conflict», – summed up Yulia Osmolovskaya.

As conclusions, we can once again state: no breakthroughs or sensational decisions after Trump and Putin’s conversation. However, there was no breakdown, some conflict and escalation, which in our time can also be considered a plus. It is also positive for 30 days to protect the domestic power system from hostile blows for 30 days: this chance should be used.

But in the other side, they simply “agree on.” Therefore, it is only necessary to follow the further communication and actions of the actors of this process.

Nikita Trachuk