The Putin-Trump call was a true turning point
by Tarik Cyril Amar [2-13-2025 published].
(I've combined 5 articles in this post, since they all offer relevant insights into the 90 minute phone conversation between Presidents Trump & Putin. Resolving the military conflict in Ukraine is just one of many issues that need to be negotiated. Some of these issues have been festering for decades. Russia no longer trusts the US & the West, since they have unilaterally broken and walked away from too many past agreements. The Russians will require that any Agreement needs to include serious mechanisms for enforcement that are continuously monitored, else the Agreement will quickly fail. Ukraine needs to hold new elections, since the terms of their current elected government have expired. Thus, with all of the many complex issues on the table for the negotiating teams from the US & Russia to tackle, it is unrealistic to expect an Agreement within a few weeks. It could even take the rest of the year, if not longer. For those of you who like to 'skim' articles, I've taken the liberty to highlight in 'bold' some key phrases & sentences where you might want to slow down and take note. — RAD)
The US cutting loose both Kiev and Brussels is the way to end the war and that’s a good thing.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian and expert on international politics. He has a BA in Modern History from Oxford University, an MSc in International History from the LSE, and a PhD in History from Princeton University. He has held scholarships at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and directed the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally from Germany, he has lived in the UK, Ukraine, Poland, the USA, and Turkey. His book 'The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists' was published by Cornell University Press in 2015. A study of the political and cultural history of Cold War television spy stories is about to appear, and he is currently working on a new book on the global response to the war in Ukraine. He has given interviews on various programs, including several on Rania Khlalek Dispatches, Breakthrough News. His website is https://www.tarikcyrilamar.com; he is on substack under https://tarikcyrilamar.substack.com, and tweets under @TarikCyrilAmar.
The only thing more dangerous than being America’s enemy is to be its friend.
That is a statement often attributed to Henry Kissinger – the multiple, unrepentant as well as un-prosecuted war criminal, butcher of the Global South, and revelation-resistant icon of US foreign policy. And even if the sources are a little murky – involving the slightly deranged and badly overestimated arch-conservative grandstander William F. Buckley – it would have been just like bad old Henry: sort of witty, deeply malevolent, and yet realistic in its own, venomous way.
Never mind that the idea is not that original: Aleksey Vandam, an unjustly forgotten geopolitical theorist and general of the late Russian empire, knew that much already. Watching the British and Americans abuse China, Vandam felt the Chinese had every reason for concluding that “it’s a bad thing to have an Anglo-Saxon for an enemy, but God forbid having him as a friend.”
And yet some lessons are never learned. This time it is the turn of both Ukraine and America’s EU-NATO vassals to pay the price of trying to be friends with what, in a global perspective, has been – quite objectively, quantifiably – the most overbearing, violent, and disruptive empire of firstly, the post-World War II and, recently, the post-Cold War periods.
Because that is one of the key messages of the increasingly intense – and now, finally, open – top level contacts between Moscow and Washington, that is, between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.
Let’s be clear: This is, in and of itself, a positive and badly overdue development. The recent, officially confirmed “lengthy and highly productive phone call” (Trump’s words) between the two leaders may not yet amount to a breakthrough. Even if Trump’s rhetoric – about a “successful conclusion, hopefully soon!” – already makes it look like one; Trump, it’s true, can be grandiloquent.
Yet the conversation does already serve as a big, heavy slab of a tombstone on America’s absurd and very dangerous policy of decrepitly stubborn non-communication. Moreover, Moscow has now confirmed that a full summit is in the making.
Even better, we also know already that neither Kiev nor the EU-NATO vassals were in the loop: There goes the daft, devious, and very deadly (for Ukrainians, too) mantra of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” And as a bonus: Soon there will be a lot about EU-NATO Europe without Europe. The fact that its leaders are, in the Financial Times’s words, “reel[ing]” and already clamoring for being heard merely confirms that they have been shunted aside.
Rest assured: whatever cosmetic role the Europeans may be allowed to play (or not), they are delusional if they think they’ll matter. In reality, the Trumpists are brutally frank about what they have in mind for their underlings: Washington and Moscow make the decisions, the NATO-EU vassals fall in line and, also, pay for the outcome: Reconstructing Ukraine, Trump’s people feel, is for European budgets. And if – a big if, given Moscow’s objections – any Western troops somehow end up stationed in what will be left of Ukraine, then those too will be Europe’s very bad business to take care of as well.
Let’s be frank: Both steps look harsh, but they are necessary. In the case of Ukraine, its leadership needs to be deprived of its implied veto power over peace. Because, first, that power is not real anyhow. It has always served as a smokescreen to allow warmongers in the West – recall Boris Johnson, anyone? – to sell their proxy war as the “will of Ukraine,” while Ukrainians have been used up as cannon fodder.
Second, since the Ukraine War has long been a war involving – and putting at risk – all of Ukraine’s Western sponsors as well, it is obviously unjust that their populations’ security should not matter as long as a US puppet regime in Kiev doesn’t feel like peace. Third, Ukraine is not the same as that regime. Ever more of its people want a compromise end to this war, as polls have been showing for almost a year already. The regime’s superannuated, detached, and ever less popular leader Vladimir Zelensky and his team of slick operators and clumsy sycophants have no right to stand in their nation’s way.
Regarding NATO, the EU and Europe: Apart from getting the acid disrespect they richly deserve for allowing the US and/or Ukraine to blow up their vital infrastructure, Europe’s spineless leaders have made it abundantly clear that the best thing they can do for world peace and international stability is to have no say. The antics of Kaja Kallas, the overpromoted simpleton who counts for the EU’s de facto foreign minister, are just the latest proof of that fact. And let’s not even start on Baerbock, Lammy, Macron, Starmer, von der Leyen… The list of war-besotted incompetents and “Atlanticist” sell-outs goes on and on.
It’s not as if there had never been alternatives: remember what happened when Viktor Orbán, leader of bona fide EU and NATO member Hungary, tried to revive some diplomacy on behalf of Europe last summer? The Brussels gang went into an almost indecent panic attack, disavowing all such uncouth ideas: Diplomacy?!? Not on our watch! Well, what’s left to say now? You didn’t want talks with Orbán, now you’ll get freezing-out with Trump. Slow claps all around, once again.
I am a European; I wished it were different. But reality remains reality: Unless NATO-EU Europe’s “elites” either grow up (very unlikely) or are replaced (if only), they should be left out of serious international politics. It’s better and safer for everyone, including their own countries.
As things seem to be shaping up now, the US has signaled that it is ready to accept crucial Russian war aims: Ukraine will not get into NATO and Moscow will retain territories conquered during the war, as Trump’s secretary of defense Pete Hegseth has made clear. Both points, it is true, require serious elaboration: Moscow has been explicit for years that it will not agree to any settlement that leaves open the possibility of a “sneak”-NATO membership for Ukraine, where the West’s war alliance arms, trains, and equips but without formal membership, as it has already done. If anyone in Washington – or somewhere in Europe, for that matter – still thinks they can cheat, again, Russia will keep fighting. A Russian red line is a red line is a red line.
And don’t forget: the West has zero credibility left. After three decades of massive post-Cold War bad faith and trickery over one issue after another, from NATO expansion, via the rights of Russian-speakers in the Baltics and Libya’s destruction, to that of Syria – to name only a few examples – no one in Washington should assume they can have anything from Russia simply by saying “but we are different.”
Art of the deal here, art of the deal there: This time, only hard-headed, verifiable quid-pro-quos will even be on the table. As ancient-history American uber-cold warrior and – weirdly enough, sort of co-peacemaker, in the end – Ronald Reagan once said in execrably pronounced but brave Russian: doveriai, no proveriai (доверяй, но проверяй): Trust but verify. Now it’s Americans who will get to hear that a lot and in proper Russian: if there will ever be a time again for trust, the West will have to earn it first.
Concerning territory, only negotiations can clear up details. Yet, while there may or may not be some flexibility in Moscow, all Western and Ukrainian interlocutors should avoid getting up their hopes: This war has been costly for Russia, too; and whether its opponents and critics like it or not, it is winning. These two facts will translate into hard limits to Moscow’s flexibility on territory as well. Where exactly they are, remains to be seen. Trying to disregard them is a recipe for further or renewed war.
This rapprochement in the still crucial US-Russian relationship is a very important development. That much is already certain. It was not unpredictable. Trump’s campaign statements, his overall sense of the world, and even his temperament made it more likely than not. But it could also not have happened: Washington hardliners, who are not extinct or powerless, might have nipped it in the bud. Indeed, they may still succeed. Nothing will be certain before an agreement is not only signed but also fully implemented in good faith (unlike Minsk-2 of sad 2015 fame, yet another agreement that the West – and Kiev – systematically betrayed).
Yet let’s not overlook two important things that are already clear: As I have pointed out before, it is a fact now that Russia has defeated the West, in the simple sense that it is Moscow that is now imposing its terms on the war’s settlement; and the West’s leaders in Washington have now de facto acknowledged this outcome. While the West has fought Russia through Ukraine, its investment in treasure (including through self-damaging economic warfare), arms, intelligence, unofficial fighters, political support, and, last but not least, excessive rhetorical commitment is amply sufficient to make this a painful Western defeat, not “merely” a Ukrainian one. And that is how it will be perceived by the world, too.
Trying to “take out” a resurgent Russia was always a predictably bad idea.
Allow me, for once, to quote myself. As I wrote in December 2021, before the escalation of February 2022, a “major change in how the West and Russia relate to each other” was “inevitable” then already, because “sometime between, say, 2008 and 2014, the post-Cold War era has ended, and we are now in a post-post-Cold War world. It is this tectonic shift, Russia’s come-back, far from perfect yet substantial, that fundamentally drives the need for a geopolitical re-adjustment. The latter can happen in a deliberate and negotiated manner, or the movers and shakers of the West, first of all the US, can decide to let geopolitical nature take its course. The second course of, as it were, malign negligence would lead to a much bumpier ride to a new status quo, quite possibly with catastrophic effects.”
It is that “much bumpier ride” that, hopefully is coming to an end now – at least for a while – and the result is in: The West has tried and failed to stop Russia; the West has gambled recklessly and lost. Russia is now stronger than before that Western failure, and the West is weaker. Because weakness and strength are always relative, as Thomas Hobbes, past master of realism and pessimism told us a long time ago.
And here is the second thing that is already clear: The West is not one thing. While it is dominated by the US, its European vassals will suffer much worse from this historic setback. They could have stymied the American war course. If even one major European NATO state (France, Germany, Britain…) had come out and struck a deal with Moscow to never allow Ukraine into NATO, that state would have surely been punished by Washington, but the war could have been avoided. Because every individual NATO member has, in effect, veto power on new admissions.
In an ideal scenario, the hapless vassals could even have banded together and rebelled against their risk-addicted lords in Washington. But they chose complete submission instead. Now they have only two options: Try to continue the proxy war on their own – if there will be a Kiev regime left to collaborate with – in which case the US will watch from the sidelines as they are being ground up. (No, NATO, that is, the US will not help… duh). Or they can give up and try to navigate their defeat by Moscow and abandonment by Washington as best they can through trying to mend ties with Russia. Their economies, in urgent need of rescue, would benefit, as stock market reactions to the recent developments signal. For their own sake, the European “elites” should finally return to reality. Personally, I doubt they will.
Related
Trump wants a deal with Russia – but can he deliver? [2-13-2025]
Trump says he will ‘probably’ meet with Putin in Saudi Arabia [2-12-2025]
Russia has won a war against the West: What the Putin-Trump call really means [2-13-2025]
Russia has won a war against the West: What the Putin-Trump call really means
by Tarik Cyril Amar [2-13-2025 published].
The new reality is that the West can be stopped and made to negotiate on its “adversary’s” terms.
It’s obviously good news for the world that the US has finally ended its perverse policy of anti-diplomacy (its absurd essence: When there’s a really dangerous problem, do not try to solve it by communicating) regarding Russia, the other great power with a massive nuclear arsenal.
But let’s not forget the even bigger picture: US President Donald Trump will not (and cannot) admit it – and Russian President Vladimir Putin is wise enough to not rub it in – but the single most important take-away from yesterday’s phone conversation is that Russia has won a war against the West.
Yes, it was a half-proxy war (that is, by proxy for the West, often half-heartedly, while very direct for both Russia and Ukraine), but that makes little geopolitical difference now. The West has been asking for this defeat. It could have easily been avoided, either by finding a compromise with Russia earlier or by staying out of the fight between Moscow and Kiev. But now things are what they are and the new reality is that the West can be stopped and forced to negotiate on its opponent’s (in this case, Russia’s) terms – and that the whole world knows this now as a tested, empirical fact. This is a historic turning point, and also good news for humanity. The reverberations will be felt for decades.
Ukrainians have been used and sold out. Those few in the West warning that this would happen were systematically maligned and sidelined. But now it will be Ukraine’s false ‘friends’ (and their own US- and Canadian-based diaspora) who should have a reckoning coming. So does the Kiev regime. The tragedy of Ukraine is immense, and it was unnecessary. In Ukraine, this, too, will become a historic turning point, and will have long-lasting consequences.
What will happen between the US and Russia is not yet predictable, but a broader détente is possible. The perversely, self-destructively, treasonously obedient EU elites, in any case, will learn what it feels like to be first used and then ignored, just like Ukraine. The worst thing they could do – and as things currently stand, something they might actually do – is let the US ‘Europeanize’ the war. The Biden administration has done a brilliant job wrecking its EU-NATO vassals. Trump might complete it by luring them into the trap of trying to tangle with Russia on their own – while Washington and Moscow make up, as they should.
Related
Dmitry Trenin: Why Trump needs to call Putin on day one [12-9-2024]
‘It is impossible to bring us to our knees’: Russia reacts to Putin-Trump phone call
by Georgiy Berezovsky, Vladikavkaz-based journalist [2-13-2025 published].
Russian politicians, journalists, and experts reacted to the news about the first contact between the presidents of Russia and the US.
The phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump which took place yesterday and lasted for an hour and a half, has become this week’s – and perhaps this month’s – top story. During their conversation, the two leaders discussed the exchange of prisoners on both sides, the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, and the possibility of a face-to-face meeting. Here’s what Russian politicians and experts are saying about the conversation between the two leaders.
Third President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev:
The presidents of Russia and the US have talked at last. This is very important in and of itself. The previous US administration cut off all high-level contacts in an attempt to punish and humiliate Russia. As a result, the world was balancing on the brink of the Apocalypse. How did we get there? It just so happened at some point that the US appointed itself the country-in-chief on our planet with the exclusive right to wage a hybrid war against our people, to mete out justice and grant pardons. It was a grave mistake, which nearly wiped humanity off the face of the earth. Nobody attempted something like that before senile Biden’s team. It’s true that we would hold shouting matches with America and sometimes practiced brinkmanship, but nobody slapped personal sanctions on Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis or on Brezhnev during the conflict in Afghanistan or severed contacts between the heads of state. On the contrary, the leaders kept lines of communication open, which helped resolve crises.
In our small, controversial but highly interdependent world there can be no chief country or planetary ruler. This is a lesson that must be learned by the arrogant American elites and the so-called deep state (US bureaucracy). They need to understand that contacts and consultations are much more valuable than chest-thumping and the desire to see the strategic defeat of a country like Russia. That would be a very dangerous thing anyway because it is impossible to bring us to our knees. The quicker our adversaries realize this, the better.
If they don’t, we’ll get back to where we were. The Doomsday Clock will keep on ticking towards midnight, and then we will surely “behold a pale horse, and the horseman’s name will be Death...”
Vice Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev:
My first impression is that, judging by its length, the conversation was meaningful and engaging, and laid the groundwork for further interactions which will be meaningful and important in their own way.
I believe we’re still far from any breakthroughs – too many issues have piled up, and Trump’s predecessors in the US, along with some politicians who remain in power in NATO countries, have deliberately and maliciously obstructed any progress.
Now all eyes are on how quickly a personal meeting can be arranged, which the presidents agreed upon, and how effectively it can be prepared. Let’s not forget that the negotiations are set to begin “immediately.”
In this situation, there is no room for error on both sides. I believe the two leaders will instruct their negotiating teams appropriately.
The mistakes will rest squarely on the shoulders of Ukrainian and European politicians who provoked the current conflict. They are the ones who will answer to their voters.
Former presidential candidate, journalist Ksenia Sobchak:
Trump, of course, is a totally unpredictable figure and a showman, but there are two key points:
1. He is the president of the US.
2. He has already taken several concrete steps toward Moscow and ending Russia’s Special Military Operation
When, under what US administration, did you last hear Putin talking about the US like that? And vice-versa?
I’m 100% sure that things won’t go entirely smoothly, that’s obvious. And there will certainly be no “territorial exchanges”; Putin will never back down, especially not in public. Refusing to submit to ultimatums is part of his image and character. We’ve seen this countless times.
Moreover, he knows what would happen to the people in the new regions, who already adapted to the change in leadership and citizenship, if the AFU were to return there.
But dialogue has begun, and I am very happy about that. May it all end as soon as possible.
Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club Andrey Bystritsky:
It’s crucial to not jump to conclusions. The gap between the current conversation and a meaningful agreement is large and complex. In this regard, nothing is more dangerous than naivety and superficial thinking, especially given the significant risks and challenges involved.
Academic Supervisor of the Institute of World Military Economy and Strategy at HSE University, Dmitry Trenin:
There is hope that the dialogue initiated by both sides might help Russia achieve the goals of the military operation. However, the ultimate outcome will also depend on the situation on the battlefield. A diplomatic resolution will only satisfy Moscow if it can be perceived as [Russia’s] victory and address what the Russian leadership considers the root causes of the conflict. Let’s not deceive ourselves – the policies of Western nations have already disappointed us many times in the past.
Europe still remains within the sphere of US interests, even though Trump’s team has started shifting its focus toward China, which is quite painful for Europeans. What we see today in US-Russia relations indicates that Trump is eager to resolve a conflict that distracts him from far more pressing matters; an end of the conflict would allow him to concentrate on the Asia-Pacific region – and specifically, on China.
Expert at the Valdai International Discussion Club Andrey Kortunov:
In 2018, a summit took place in Helsinki between the presidents, but it ultimately fell short of expectations: Rather than improving, US-Russia relations continued to deteriorate. The initial contact between the two leaders is necessary, but in itself, it is not enough for a productive dialogue. It seems that Moscow and Washington will send a signal to various bureaucratic structures – diplomats, military officials, intelligence agencies, and possibly even track two experts – to start addressing specific issues that could eventually shape the agenda for a top-level meeting, which will likely require several months of preparation.
The parties will need to seriously work on finding common ground, and while the Ukraine issue is the key point of concern, it is not the only one. This could also include discussions on the Iranian nuclear deal, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the situation in Northeast Asia – an area that the Pentagon has identified as a priority for the new administration.
Senator Aleksey Pushkov:
The phone call between Putin and Trump on February 12, 2025 will remain in the history of global politics and diplomacy. While it may not be a breakthrough yet, it could be the first step towards one. I’m sure that officials in Kiev, Brussels, Paris, and London are reading Trump’s lengthy comments about his conversation with Putin with horror and disbelief. European capitals will hold urgent consultations on how to derail the emerging dialogue between Moscow and Washington. Such efforts will undoubtedly be made. The negotiations will be extremely challenging, and pressure will be exerted on Russia. However, a foundation has been laid.
Co-founder and editor of the Vatfor project Sergey Poletayev:
Here are two separate thoughts. First: Right now, Trump is negotiating with Putin behind the back of blockhead [Keith] Kellogg, the special envoy for Ukraine. While Kellogg has been pushing deadlines on Ukraine indefinitely, his boss has done all the work for him. Now, the blockhead will be informed about decisions that pertain to him. Europe and Ukraine have already been informed. Feel free to draw your own conclusions about the defeat of the globalists surrounding Trump.
Second thought: Our next decisive offensive can be expected in Kursk Region.
VGTRK bureau chief in New York Valentin Bogdanov:
Russia’s fundamental demands regarding security in Europe, NATO expansion, and Ukraine’s status remain on the agenda of the negotiations, since the winners always set the terms. To break the unprecedented four-year silence between the leaders of the two largest nuclear powers, all Trump had to do was call Putin.
Talking about details, we cannot overlook the fact that Trump was surprised by the reporters’ questions about whether he views Ukraine as an equal participant in the [negotiations] process. The mantra “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” has been thoroughly discarded.
It brings to mind the infamous “peace formulas” that were drafted with the hope they’d eventually be presented to Moscow. They won’t be. All those plans collapsed alongside the reckless dreams that Ukrainians died and continue to die for; due to the arrogance and cynicism of their curators, Ukrainians find themselves at the same spot where they were in 2022.
As for personal meetings between the two leaders, they seem likely to take place both in Russia and the US. There are plenty of appropriate occasions this year, such as the 80th anniversary of WWII Victory or the 80th anniversary of the UN. The first meeting may also take place on neutral ground; Trump even mentioned Saudi Arabia. The Global South isn’t like Europe and Ukraine, which are silently watching the collapse of all the principles that their bloody theater relied on.
Biden policies brought world to brink of apocalypse – Medvedev
by RT [2-13-2025 published].
The previous US administration’s actions were “a grave mistake,” former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said.
The recent phone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, was “important in itself,” as the world has been “balancing on the brink of Apocalypse” due to the actions of former US President Joe Biden’s administration, according to Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council.
In a social media post on Thursday, the former Russian president said Washington must recognize the value of dialogue with Moscow rather than pursuing strategic defeat against it.
He accused the US of acting as “the country-in-chief on our planet with the exclusive right” to wage what he described as a “hybrid war” against Russia. As a result, the world “was balancing on the brink of Apocalypse,” Medvedev wrote.
“Nobody attempted something like that before senile Biden’s team,” he said, adding that the former US administration severed all high-level contacts in an “attempt to punish and humiliate Russia.”
Medvedev called this “a grave mistake which nearly wiped humanity off the face of the earth.”
He added that the leaders of both countries had always maintained open lines of communication, which played a crucial role in resolving conflicts.
“It’s true that we would hold shouting matches with America and sometimes practiced brinkmanship, but nobody slapped personal sanctions on [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis or on [Leonid] Brezhnev during the conflict in Afghanistan or severed contacts between the heads of state,” Medvedev wrote.
He went on to say that the American elites and the “deep state” must finally recognize the importance of diplomatic cooperation with Moscow, as “it is impossible to bring [Russia] to its knees.”
He cautioned that if Washington fails to acknowledge this reality, tensions will only continue to escalate.
“If they don’t… The Doomsday Clock will keep on ticking towards midnight, and then we will surely ‘behold a pale horse, and the horseman’s name will be Death,” Medvedev concluded, referencing the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse from the Bible.
His remarks come after Putin and Trump held a phone talk on Wednesday, which marked the first known conversation between the leaders of the two nations since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.
The presidents have agreed that the two countries should “work together” and backed the idea of resolving the conflict through diplomacy. They agreed to maintain personal contact in the future, including in-person meetings. Trump later named Saudi Arabia as a potential host for his first meeting with Putin in his second term. The Kremlin confirmed that Saudi Arabia was mentioned as a possible venue of the summit.
Related
Putin-Trump summit on the way – Kremlin [2-13-2025]
Fyodor Lukyanov: Trump’s call with Putin marks a shift in global power
by Fyodor Lukyanov [2-13-2025 published].
Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
US-Russian relations will now return to their ‘factory settings’, but the key here is the end of Western overreach.
The long-anticipated phone call between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has finally taken place, sending shock waves through the geopolitical landscape. But before anyone gets carried away with triumph or despair, it’s worth recognizing what has actually happened: Russian-US relations have simply returned to their natural state – one of strategic rivalry, conflicting interests, and fundamental differences in worldview.
For decades, the US pursued a fantasy – one where it could reshape Russia in its own image, first through incentives and later through coercion. Washington believed it could mold Moscow into a compliant partner within the ‘liberal international order’, an illusion that only collapsed when reality hit: Russia was never going to be remade. Meanwhile, Moscow spent years trying to find common ground, adjusting its own policies in hopes of reaching a workable coexistence. That experiment, too, ended a decade ago.
The dissolution of the Cold War system in the late 1980s was a historical anomaly, a fluke that many mistook for a permanent transformation. The Western narrative of ‘victory’ was premature – history does not end, it evolves. Over time, the illusion of a unipolar world became harder to sustain, and the global balance of power began shifting. Those who benefited from the old order clung to it desperately, while those who felt shortchanged pushed back harder. Ukraine became the unfortunate fault line in this struggle, the battleground of irreconcilable visions.
What is happening now is not the beginning of a new era but the inevitable correction of an old one. The US, even under Trump’s presidency, has recognized that great power rivalry is once again the defining feature of international politics. But unlike previous decades, when ideological battles masked geopolitical interests, the new competition is more pragmatic, stripped of the pretense of universal values. The liberal world order is no longer a guiding principle – it is a relic of the past.
This shift does not guarantee peace, nor does it eliminate the risks of confrontation. But it does bring a certain rationality back into the equation. The West’s ideological zeal, which often led it to take reckless, counterproductive actions, is giving way to a more sober assessment of power and interests. The focus is no longer on forcing one side to submit, but on negotiating tangible advantages.
Russia, meanwhile, is positioned as a key player in shaping this new world order. The strategic fantasies of the 1990s have been replaced with a hard-nosed realism that acknowledges the limits of Western power. The reset to ‘factory settings’ does not mean stability – it means a return to the fundamentals of global politics, where strength, influence, and calculated diplomacy dictate the course of history.
Related
Russia has won a war against the West: What the Putin-Trump call really means [2-13-2025]
Additional Related Articles
No NATO for Kiev, Ukrainian territorial concessions, venue for talks with Putin: Key takeaways from Trump’s briefing [2-13-2025] Consider reading this since it has several articles that outline the important points from the recent Trump & Putin 90 minute phone conversation.