“The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month…” Is there a U.S. History teacher who hasn’t recited this phrase while discussing World War I and the Armistice that promised its end? There is, however, another date worthy of mention in this discussion. It is November 19, 1919, on which date the United States Senate did something it had never done before: it rejected a peace treaty, specifically the Treaty of Versailles.

Trump is now faced with the same problems as Wilson with his “Fourteen Point” plan when he had to please the Senate, European Allies, and the American public. One major difference is that, contrary to WWI, when American soldiers were also dying, in Ukraine, they are not, except for mercenaries. Still, one’d assume that Americans who sincerely claim their adherence to Judeo-Christian values should oppose the war between two Christian nations. However, it looks like they are in the minority, especially among democrats. In Congress, they are joined by Republicans who would prefer this war to continue, since it weakens Russia, and who absolutely do not cares about the lives of Ukrainians.

Jared Peterson: “The West’s interest in Ukraine is merely a U.S. hegemony adventure, seeking to assert U.S. top dog dominance in Eastern Europe and thereafter the world.”

According to Pew Religious Landscape Study, nearly nine in ten American adults say they believe in God or a universal spirit. At the same time, unlike in the previous two decades of disastrous wars led by the United States and NATO in the Middle East, the current war in Ukraine involves no militant Islamic factor. Those now in the driver’s seat are wholly composed of self-identified Christians and Jews.

Jared Peterson from American Thinker is correct when he states that “the West’s interest in Ukraine is merely a U.S. hegemony adventure, seeking to assert U.S. top dog dominance in Eastern Europe and thereafter the world.”

Official Washington and its transatlantic loyalists call this war “unprovoked” and blame it all on Vladimir Putin. However, there is another America, which disagrees, including many well-known experts both on the Right and Left, who can hardly be dismissed as Putin’s bootlickers or useful idiots.

Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, in his article “Ukraine is the Latest Neocon disaster,” didn’t hesitate to mention some specific names of those who got us into this quagmire when they declared that the United States must dominate the world and must confront rising regional powers that could someday challenge U.S. global or regional dominance.

The list of people in the know who believe that the West provoked this war is long. It keeps growing, but why not quote the late Pope Francis, who didn’t mince words by saying that the “barking of NATO at the door of Russia” might have led to the invasion of Ukraine and that he didn’t know whether other countries should supply Ukraine with more arms.

One would assume that formal meetings between government leaders would not be in the spirit of what is a solemn occasion, a sacred ceremony of the Pope’s funeral. However, I’d risk thinking that Pope himself would approve of these meetings if these efforts helped Trump in his search for peace. Still, for those like Macron, Starmer, Zelensky, von der Leyen, who, no one doubts, would attempt to convince him to continue this war, the killing and devastation, it is a total disgrace.

April 30th is an important date in American politics. This is the day 100 for the American President in the White House, and all attention will be on the reports of his achievements and failures. Nothing can be more critical than Peace, and on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of Elbe River reunion, when Americans and Russians were allies there were many celebrations in Moscow, Washington, and German city of Torgau, where related memorials are located, those who took part or watched them online wished Trump success in his Peace efforts.

A symbolic event took place not far from the Elbe Ceremony in downtown Moscow, when an automobile motorcade with Trump advisor Steve Witkoff drove by on the way to the Kremlin, and the crowd greeted him with Russian and American flags.

Trump met Zelensky in Rome on Saturday before Pope Francis’s funeral for what the White House described as “very productive” talks. The US president believes that the Ukrainian leader “really has no choice” but to sign up to the proposal, according to a source close to his special envoy Steve Witkoff. Trump is threatening to pull out of the peace process next week unless a deal is agreed.

The US proposal, presented by Witkoff to Moscow and Kyiv, was reported to include formal US recognition of Russia’s control over Crimea, the peninsula that was annexed in 2014, and de facto recognition of Russia’s control over areas of southern and eastern Ukraine that its forces have seized since the full-scale invasion of 2022.

A rival European and Ukrainian proposal makes discussion about control of territory dependent upon talks that would follow a ceasefire.

“Trump’s view is that this land has been seized and it is not going back,” said a source close to Witkoff.

“The deal on the table is that the Russian-occupied territory is going to remain occupied. Russia’s not pulling it out of it. That part is set in stone.”

The US believes that, if Ukraine rejects the deal, the war would go on for months and possibly years, with Kyiv reliant on Europe for funding and munitions, the source said. “The [US] funding cut-off actually is going to have as much of an impact as the weapons cut-off [this year], because Ukraine uses that money to buy more weapons from other allies,” the source added.

Asked if this was a “take it or leave it” moment for Zelensky, the source said the US saw it as “take it or take it”.

The Americans also believe European public opinion will turn against the huge expenditure required to keep Ukraine in the war as the continent heads towards recession — partly caused by Trump’s tariffs.

Witkoff held three hours of talks with President Putin in Moscow on Friday. Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin foreign policy aide who took part in the talks, described the meeting as constructive and useful. “This conversation allowed Russia and the United States to further bring their positions closer together, not only on Ukraine but also on a number of other international issues,” he said. “As for the Ukrainian crisis itself, the discussion focused in particular on the possibility of resuming direct negotiations between representatives of the Russian Federation and Ukraine.”

Zelensky has argued that Ukraine’s constitution forbids him from formally recognising Crimea as part of Russia, and has ruled out signing any peace deal that hands over control of Ukrainian territory.

Trump showed his uncompromising line on Russian-occupied Ukraine when he told Time magazine on Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia” and again blamed Kyiv for provoking Moscow’s invasion.

However, The Times understands that he is flexible on formal US recognition of Crimea at this stage, and is not trying to force Zelensky to sign away Ukrainian sovereignty, but to accept the Russian occupation.

Mariana Betsa, the Ukrainian deputy foreign minister, countered that Ukraine would do “whatever it takes” to take back Crimea.

“Our position is very clear and our president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is very clear on that. Crimea is Ukraine,” Betsa told Times Radio. “We’ll never recognise the attempted annexation by Russia. We will never recognise it as a Russian territory and we will take whatever it takes … to occupy our land, our country.”

She spoke hours after Yaroslav Moskalik, a senior Russian general, was killed in a car bomb attack in Moscow. The Kremlin blamed Ukrainian special forces for the attack.

Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv, said that Ukraine may have to concede land to halt the war with Russia. He said it could be a “temporary” solution to end the three-year-long conflict. “One of the scenarios is … to give up territory. It’s not fair. But for the peace, temporary peace, maybe it can be a solution,” Klitschko told the BBC.

In London, the former commander of the Ukrainian armed forces said that Russia would continue to wage war against his country until it suffers a massive defeat.

“As long as the enemy has the resources, forces, and means to strike at our territory and attempt offensive actions, he will do so. This is a war of attrition,” Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain, said at the UK-Ukraine Defence Tech Forum. “Only the complete destruction of [Russia’s] ability to wage war, that is the military-economic potential, can put an end to this.”

Still, after many economists warned of recession risks, only a few hours after imposing steep tariffs on dozens of America’s trading partners, he announced that nearly all of them would be paused for 90 days and that he might consider exempting some U.S. companies from these tariffs.

However, nearly every U.S. trading partner instead faces a 10 percent blanket tariff, on top of 25 percent tariffs on cars, steel, and aluminum — but China, which had sharply retaliated, will have an even higher 125 percent tariff, up from the 104 percent figure proposed yesterday. A tariff fight between two major economies might affect many other nations.

While Joe Biden and the European Union were willing to disburse billions in support of Ukraine, Trump has decidedly changed course: he wants his money back, if not in cash, at least in the form of mineral resources.

Regrettably, in addition to financial turmoil, his pledges to end the war in Ukraine quickly are shifting together with the rhetoric. One day, he blames Zelensky, the next day, Putin, then threatens bad news for both.  Putin takes it calmly, and his team continues to emphasize some progress.

On the other hand, Zelensky, encouraged by Europeans and, as some folks in the know say, by certain strong substances, keeps arguing. One must admit that his cynical arguments are not without reasoning. The US and the West hired him to bring Ukraine to a sacrificial altar as a mercenary country to weaken Russia, and he and his team want to be paid for this. Biden and the EU were ready to do this for as long as it takes, but Trump reversed the course and wants money back, if not in cash, then at least in minerals.

Of course, one’d assume it is something new in the mercenary business. Once you hire them, you are not asking to pay back, whether they do a good or bad job. I could be wrong, and maybe we should ask someone like Black Waters’ boss, Eric Prince, what the procedure is in such cases. He was hired to do the dirty work for the US in Iraq, and judging from the results, it didn’t go well. Was he asked to return the money? I doubt it.

Besides, most mineral and agricultural lands already belong to Ukrainian and Western oligarchs. For example, Trump can ask his new cabinet member Robert F. Kennedy about Black Rock. “Few people understand what the war in Ukraine means for big business—namely, opportunity. It’s not just the weapons and reconstruction contracts. Ukraine’s vast agricultural lands—among the most fertile in the world—are up for grabs, and American companies like BlackRock are at the front of the line,” says RFK, Jr.

Since bringing Europeans and Zelensky to their senses at this time is almost impossible, let us start with the former allies, the US and Russia, to lay the foundation for the peace process, and the months of April and May have symbolic 80th-anniversary dates for both countries that are appropriate for this purpose: April 25 and May 8-9, 1945.

On April 25, 1945, soldiers of the Red and the US Armies met on the bridge over the Elbe River in the city of Torgau on the eve of their joint victory two weeks later over the NAZI Germany. Eighty years ago, the “Spirit of Elbe” was born. For many Russians, Americans, and people worldwide who started the international movement with this name, it serves as a beacon of hope for all those who want the two countries to work together to benefit both nations and humanity.

Five years ago, Trump and Putin said the following on that day: “The ‘Spirit of the Elbe’ is an example of how our countries can put aside differences, build trust, and cooperate in pursuit of a greater cause. As we work today to confront the most important challenges of the 21st century, we pay tribute to the valor and courage of all those who fought together to defeat fascism. Their heroic feat will never be forgotten.”

Trump talks about his interest in the summit with Putin but keeps delaying the date while Moscow is ready.  The dates of the Elbe Reunion and V-Day celebrations are perfect to schedule this summit and resolve the remaining differences, at least between the two countries. Then, work to bring others to the table.

Trump’s hopes for a wider ceasefire, much less a formal peace agreement, are fading fast, and his level of frustration is beginning to soar. His annoyance with Ukraine’s president Volodymr Zelensky has been apparent on several occasions, most notably during the infamous White House confrontation between Zelensky and both Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance on February 28, 2025. Recently, however, Trump’s irritation with Vladimir Putin also has increased. On one occasion, the president expressed extreme anger at the Russian leader for dragging his feet on a more comprehensive ceasefire. Other administration officials also stated that it was time for Putin to make up his mind about whether or not he wants a peace accord.

Trump seemingly has wandered into a trap of his own making. Moreover, it is a snare that resembles the one that kept the United States entangled militarily in Afghanistan throughout most of his first term, despite his rhetoric during the 2016 presidential campaign about quickly extracting U.S. military forces from that quagmire. Once in office, Trump allowed hawkish advisers, such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, to talk him into abandoning his own instincts and following the advice of “experts” who had mired the United States in the interminable Afghan conflict.  In the case of Ukraine, there are troubling signs that Trump may be responding favorably to hawks in both the United States and Europe who insist that failing to back Kyiv’s unrealistic position would amount to a shameful betrayal of a beleaguered democracy.

I have long argued that despite his self-promoted image of being an advocate of a restrained, realistic U.S. foreign policy, Trump’s actual conduct has fallen far short of that standard. At best, he has encouraging instincts on a few foreign policy issues—and even in those cases, his tendencies are vague and fragile. Trump’s wavering stance on the Ukraine situation is the latest example of his unreliability.

Washington’s principal objective should be to terminate its support for Kyiv regardless of the outcome for Ukraine.  By becoming involved in the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Joe Biden’s administration needlessly endangered the American people.  Washington has not only equipped Kyiv’s forces with increasingly deadly weaponry, but also has shared military intelligence, including targeting data that have enabled Ukraine to shoot down Russian aircraft (including at least one military transport plane with more than 100 personnel aboard) and sink naval vessels. Moscow would be well within its rights under international law to regard such U.S. behavior as acts of war and respond accordingly. We are quite fortunate that the Kremlin has not yet responded to U.S. provocations in that fashion, but Trump is  pushing our luck.

The Trump administration needs to recognize certain realities and adjust U.S. policy appropriately. First, there is virtually no chance that Kyiv and its Western cheerleaders are going to secure a peace treaty with the provisions they seek. No government in Moscow will agree to an accord that returns Crimea and all of the other conquered territories to Kyiv. Likewise, no Russian government will accept a peace settlement that gives Ukraine the right to join NATO.  Indeed, the issue of NATO’s desire to make Ukraine a major military asset sitting on Russia’s border was the principal cause of the current crisis. Russia is slowly, but inexorably, winning its military campaign in Ukraine, so it is highly improbable that Putin and his associates will make the concessions Kyiv and its NATO backers demand.

The European powers may have some hard decisions to make about how far they are willing to go to placate Russia and restore peace on the continent. But America’s interests are not congruent with those of Europe, and they should never have been viewed in that way.  Americans can and should see the Ukraine-Russia war for what it is: a conflict between two autocratic powers on the other side of the world. It is not and never has been an existential confrontation between democracy and autocracy. Propaganda to the contrary should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Even more pertinent, the dispute is not even remotely worth the level of cost and risk the United States has incurred to this point. It definitely is not worth persisting in such a reckless course. Trump’s constitutional role is not to resolve a war between two feuding autocracies. His proper role should be to extricate the United States from an unrewarding, potentially very dangerous situation.

Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter is a contributing editor to 19FortyFive and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and the Libertarian Institute.  He also served in various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute.  Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,300 articles on defense, foreign policy and civil liberties issues.  His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

They’ve raised the possibility of a so-called “Reverse Nixon” maneuver aimed at fostering a global balance of power more favorable to America. But can it work?

President Richard Nixon famously visited China in 1972, ending a 25-year freeze between Washington and Beijing. The table had been set for his diplomacy years earlier with bloody skirmishes along the Chinese-Soviet border in 1969. This fracture between the Eurasian communist giants effectively opened a door for Nixon.

Nixon’s decisive move on the global chessboard proved an immense geopolitical blow to the Soviets. Now, the Kremlin had to contend with powerful military blocs on both its western and eastern frontiers. And, as would become clear in the 1980s, the combination of America’s technological prowess and China’s immense demographic resources and hunger for modernization would prove more than a little unnerving for the USSR, which was already overextended.

Today’s world is very different, of course, but could Trump’s attempted rapprochement with the Kremlin bring about a similarly stunning transformation in world politics?

Unfortunately, such an outcome is unlikely. Beyond the acute antagonism in U.S.-Russia relations, there’s another important factor at work: the broad and deep solidarity that characterizes the China-Russia relationship.

Some Western experts have characterized the ties that bind Beijing and Moscow as a mere “marriage of convenience,” suggesting that a hypothetical break — akin to what occurred in the 1960s — remains conceivable. It’s not that the relationship is devoid of tensions, whether with respect to environmental issues, such as rapacious logging in Siberia for the Chinese market, or lingering foreign policy questions like how to deal with India or Vietnam. After all, Beijing is not pleased that Moscow sells myriad armaments to China’s regional rivals.

Moreover, neither side is eager to discuss the painful history of the Sino-Soviet conflict. Many have pointed out there is an obvious power asymmetry between the two countries that has created some instability.

Yet the overall picture is of a harmonious bilateral relationship. China-Russia trade has boomed in recent years. The vast Chinese market has allowed Russia to divert exports previously meant for Europe to Chinese customers. This has meant cheap energy for Beijing and, more critically, has played a key role in stabilizing Russia’s finances amid the heavy sanctions that have been slapped on the country since 2022.

Beijing has done much more for the Kremlin than simply stabilize Russia’s finances and fill in its large consumer markets. Crucially, it has provided both key components to Russia’s war machine as well as timely logistics aid, including non-lethal assistance that has proven significant too.

Chinese excavators seem to have proven quite important to building the Russian “Surovikin Line” that decisively defeated Ukraine’s summer 2023 offensive aimed at reaching the Sea of Azov. Just as importantly, Beijing leaders and experts have provided a steady stream of statements that are generally supportive of the Kremlin in its struggle against the West.

And while China has refused to send lethal weapons let alone troops to Ukraine, it has continued regular joint military exercises with Russia that now routinely include both strategic forces and irregular forces. In October 2024, Chinese and Russian coast guard forces linked up for their first ever joint patrol through the Bering Strait — proximate to Alaska’s shoreline. The Arctic forms an arena of multi-domain partnership between China and Russia wherein their interests are quite well-aligned. In short, China seeks natural resources, while Russia badly needs both capital and technical expertise to spur development of the High North.

Notably, the Sino-Russian military partnership now sometimes embraces third countries, such as Iran. A 2024 Chinese academic analysis suggests, moreover, that the pressure from “U.S. maritime hegemony” can be felt simultaneously in both the Black Sea and also the South China Sea, implying a genuinely common strategic viewpoint.

The many cooperative domains suggested above imply a deeply rooted bond between China and Russia that will not be easily broken. This casts major doubt on the viability of a so-called “reverse Nixon” maneuver.

Yet there are still sound reasons to pursue improved relations between Washington and Moscow. First and foremost, there is the humanitarian necessity to stop the awful bloodletting in Ukraine.

Second, the best way to mitigate nuclear war dangers and curb nuclear proliferation is to reinvigorate arms control by improving relations between the leading nuclear weapons states. Improved relations with the Kremlin could yield strategic dividends with other problematic states like North Korea and Iran.

Finally, it is conceivable that a more confident Russia will be slightly less beholden to China and thus less likely to share the “crown jewels” of Russian military technology. This includes the sensitive domains of nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons development.

Lyle Goldstein is the Director of Asia Engagement at Defense Priorities and serves concurrently as Director of the China Initiative and Senior Fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.

Kirill Dmitriev, who runs Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, is meeting with Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer and close Trump ally who has been a key figure in efforts to secure an agreement to end the war in Ukraine, according to a person familiar with the meeting. The talks are “ongoing,” said this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

Dmitriev, who needed a temporary waiver from U.S. sanctions barring him from visiting America, has been touting the economic benefits of improved relations between the United States and Russia. He’s been offering joint multibillion-dollar deals on rare earth minerals and cooperation on energy exploration and shipping routes in the Arctic. “We see many opportunities for cooperation in the investment and economic sphere,” Dmitriev told reporters at a business forum in Moscow last month.

A graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Business School who helped run a U.S.-backed private equity firm in Moscow in the 2000s, Dmitriev has positioned himself as someone the Trump administration can do business with. And he has the kind of powerful connections that matter in Moscow. His wife, Natalia Popova, is close friends with Putin’s youngest daughter Ekaterina Tikhonova, according to three former associates, and serves as deputy director of Innopraktika, Tikhonova’s technology foundation.

But Dmitriev’s visit follows signs of impatience on the part of President Donald Trump that Putin is slow-walking negotiations over Ukraine. Trump said last weekend that he was “pissed off” with the Russia president and could impose further sanctions on Russian oil if Putin couldn’t come to terms “on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine” and “if I think it was Russia’s fault.”

Dmitriev may be here to assuage the administration and reemphasize the possibility of not only a peace settlement but also large financial deals.

The Russian wooing is founded on Putin’s cold calculation that Trump favors an international system where great powers divide up the world into spheres of interest, Russian observers said.

“Two such people can agree because this is mainly about money and power, and in this sense they have the same intentions,” said one former Kremlin official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to be frank.

Late last month, for instance, Putin nodded to Trump’s interest in seizing Greenland for the United States. “It is a profound mistake to treat it as some preposterous talk by the new U.S. administration,” Putin said. “Nothing of the sort.”

The offering of business deals and the forging of relationships through businessmen like Witkoff is a “tested mechanism” for the Kremlin, said Oleh Rybachuk, former chief of staff to Ukraine’s first Western-leaning president, Viktor Yushchenko. “For these guys it’s natural,” he said, as well as being part of an attempt to access Trump directly.

The Kremlin singled Dmitriev out to take part in the talks specifically to appeal to Trump’s business sensibilities, according to a Russian academic with close ties to senior Moscow diplomats. “Everyone understands that Trump is a businessman and thinks in economic and monetary terms,” the academic said. Dmitriev is “a person who can speak” Trump’s language.

Dmitriev also had old ties with some in Trump’s circle. He first sought introductions to Trump’s allies in November 2016 ahead of Trump’s first term through George Nader, a close business associate in the United Arab Emirates. Nader eventually arranged a secret meeting between Dmitriev and Erik Prince, the founder of the Blackwater security company and a Trump supporter, in the Seychelles in January 2017.

In the weeks before Trump’s second inauguration, Russian officials approached Witkoff while Trump’s envoywas in Doha, Qatar, for talks on brokering a ceasefire in Gaza, according to three people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details. That eventually led to the prisoner exchange coordinated by Dmitriev that saw Marc Fogel, an American schoolteacher jailed in Russia for possessing a small amount of cannabis, exchanged for Alexander Vinnik, a Russian cybercriminal.

Witkoff later told Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, during a public interview at a conference in Miami that the outreach came from “someone in Russia who you know, Kirill.”

The prisoner exchange was intended as a “gesture of goodwill” to help break the deadlock in relations with the United States and kick-start talks on resolving the conflict in Ukraine, according to the Russian academic. When Witkoff went to Moscow to bring Fogel home, he met with Putin.

The prisoner exchange and his evolving relationship with Witkoff represented a return to the spotlight for Dmitriev. He’d retreated into the shadows after the U.S. Treasury sanctioned him in February 2022, saying that “Putin and his inner circle of cronies have long relied on the [Russian sovereign wealth fund] and Dmitriev to raise funds abroad, including in the United States.”

Although the sovereign wealth fund had been established as a means for developing direct relationships with international investors for direct investments in Russia, it “is widely considered a slush fund for President Vladimir Putin and is emblematic of Russia’s broader kleptocracy,” the U.S. Treasury said.

Dmitriev, it added, “leveraged his ties to universities and organizations in the United States to serve as a representative for the Russian president to American institutions.”

Some Western bankers who’d previously worked with Dmitriev said he owed much of his standing to his close relationship through his wife to Putin’s family. “I could not understand how he got that role until someone explained that his wife is friends with Putin’s daughter,” said Christopher Barter, the former head of Goldman Sachs in Moscow. “It is typical of Putin to appoint someone inadequate to do something that’s vital.”

But others said Dmitriev’s political connections have made him a force to be reckoned with. “At the end of the day Dmitriev can put money and influence into any transaction that fits his agenda or fits his boss’s agenda. You have to listen to him,” one long time former American investor in Russia said.

Dmitriev led the business charm offensive at the peace talks in Riyadh in February, telling the U.S. delegation that American companies had lost $300 billion by leaving the Russian market following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Seasoned American investors with a long history of doing business in Russia said those figures were inflated.“It’s hard to understand how the Kremlin is coming up with these numbers,” said Craig Kennedy, a former vice chairman at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, explaining that one of the biggest write-offs by an American company exiting Russia following the invasion was just $4.5 billion by ExxonMobil from its Sakhalin-1 project.

“How do you get anywhere close to $300 billion?” he said. “It strains credibility.”

Witkoff, however, appears to have bought into some of Dmitriev’s pitch, telling Tucker Carlson in an interview broadcast in March that he hoped for cooperation between Russia and the United States on integrating energy policies in the Arctic, sharing sea lanes and to “maybe send LNG gas into Europe together, maybe collaborate on AI together.”

Siobhán O’Grady in Kyiv and Michael Birnbaum in Washington contributed to this report.

Catherine Belton is an international investigative reporter for The Washington Post, reporting on Russia. She is the author of “Putin’s People,” a New York Times Critics’ Book of 2020 and a book of the year for the Times, the Economist and the Financial Times. Belton has worked for Reuters and the Financial Times.

Having promised to achieve a rapid end to Europe’s worst conflict since World War II, Trump declared he was “pissed off” with Putin over the weekend as his frustration boiled over at the pace of negotiations. He later dialed back the criticism and said he believed the Russian leader will “fulfill his part of the deal.”

Russia would “prefer to continue certain mutual efforts to search for a settlement,” which requires time and effort to achieve, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, in response to a request for comment. “Everyone would prefer not to fight, but to talk, and not only to talk but to be heard, this is what we have with the current American administration.”

Putin’s economic envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, who is sanctioned by the US, said Thursday that he’s holding meetings in Washington with administration officials. “Opponents of rapprochement are afraid that Russia and the US will find common ground, begin to understand each other better, and build cooperation, both in international affairs and in the economy,” he said.

The Kremlin is holding out for more US concessions, including some sanctions relief and a suspension of arms deliveries to Ukraine. When talks with the US last month in Saudi Arabia yielded a deal for a moratorium on attacks against Black Sea shipping, Russia announced it was making the accord conditional on getting one of its largest state banks reconnected to the SWIFT international messaging system.

Trump aides including his special envoy Steve Witkoff had voiced optimism about progress in negotiations with Russia. The White House’s aim was for a truce agreement by April 20, a goal that now seems unlikely, and talk of a possible summit soon between Trump and Putin has faded recently.

While Putin has said he wants a deal with Trump, he has also repeatedly insisted that it must resolve what he’s defined as the root causes of the war. He has said Kyiv must abandon its goal of joining the NATO defense alliance and accept restrictions on the size of its military, while also calling for any settlement to reflect the “realities on the ground” of Russian occupation of eastern and southern Ukrainian territory since the February 2022 invasion.

Ukraine and its European allies — as well as the US under President Joe Biden’s administration — accuse Russia of trying to subjugate its neighbor.

While Trump has already conceded many of Russia’s demands, agreeing to all of Putin’s terms would risk opening the US president up to charges of weakness. Still, he made an end to the war one of his major campaign promises.

Russia has dangled the prospect of major business cooperation with the US, including in the Arctic and on rare earth deposits, as part of a revival of relations. Trump is also pushing Ukraine to accept an economic partnership deal that would give the US control of future investment in the country’s infrastructure and natural resources.

Russia was among a few countries excluded from Trump’s announcement of tariffs on Wednesday, though Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later told Fox News that was because sanctions had severed trade ties. The US imposed a 10% tariff on Ukraine.

“The Kremlin hopes it can secure a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Trump in which they hammer out a deal that stops the war in Ukraine for now — just as Trump wants — in exchange for provisions that leave Ukraine permanently weakened,” Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, wrote in an opinion piece with fellow experts at the organization. At the same time, Moscow “was prepared to keep fighting before Trump won, and it remains so today,” he said.

While Russia’s inching forward on the battlefield and has an advantage in manpower and arms over Ukraine, western analysts say it has incurred massive casualties of more than 1,000 soldiers a day.

Read more: Putin Tests How Far Trump Will Go Against Europe on Sanctions

A group of 50 Republican and Democratic senators this week introduced a sanctions package that would impose a 500% tariff on countries that buy Russian oil, petroleum products, natural gas or uranium if Putin refuses to engage in good-faith ceasefire negotiations with Ukraine or breaches an eventual agreement.

Russia has weathered three years of sanctions and won’t yield to threats now as the new measures won’t be any more effective, people familiar with Kremlin thinking insist.

“These sanctions will not affect Russia as much as they will affect other countries, those who need our oil and gas,” Anatoly Aksakov, the head of the State Duma’s financial market committee, said in a phone interview. “These are China, East Asia, Asia, developing economies.”

Another source said that Dmitriev will meet Witkoff on Wednesday.

Their meeting was reported earlier by CNN, which said Dmitriev and Witkoff will hold talks about strengthening relations between the two countries as they seek to end the war in Ukraine.

“Maybe. The resistance to US–Russia dialogue is real—driven by entrenched interests and old narratives,” Dmitriev said in a post on X responding to the CNN report.

“But what if improved relations are exactly what the world needs for lasting global security and peace.”

The White House and the U.S. Department of State did not immediately provide comment. The Russian Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dmitriev’s trip comes as Trump is seeking to meet with Putin soon to work on mending damaged relations and follows recent telephone calls between the two leaders that also focused on reaching a peace deal for Ukraine.

But as Trump appears to be growing increasingly impatient with what he has suggested might be Moscow’s foot-dragging over a wider Ukraine peace deal and saying he was “pissed off” with Putin, Dmitriev’s tip may also de-escalate some of the tensions.

After being hit by Western sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine and capitalizing on Trump’s comments about repairing relations, Russia is keen to bring back international investors to diversify its economy driven chiefly by the war in the past three years.

As Dmitriev is still under U.S. sanctions, CNN reported that the Trump administration temporarily lifted the sanctions for his visit.

Dmitriev, considered the most U.S.-savvy member of Russia’s elite, has said earlier this week that the two countries have already started talking a joint rare earth metals project, among other deals.

Putin suggested in February that the United States might be interested in exploring joint exploration for the deposits in Russia. Russia has the world’s fifth-largest reserves of the metals used in lasers and military equipment.

Russia has also been keen to attract investors to help develop its Arctic region, Dmitriev said last week. Putin wants commerce ramped up via the Northern Sea Route through Arctic waters as Russia shifts trade towards Asia and away from Europe because of Western sanctions.

Focus on the strategic importance of the Arctic for mining, shipping and international security has increased sharply because of repeated statements by Trump that he wants to acquire Greenland.

Reporting by Gram Slattery and Jasper Ward; Writing by Jasper Ward and Lidia Kelly; Editing by Chris Reese, Cynthia Osterman and Michael Perry

Gram Slattery is a White House correspondent in Washington, focusing on national security, intelligence and foreign affairs. He was previously a national political correspondent, covering the 2024 presidential campaign. From 2015 to 2022, he held postings in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Santiago, Chile, and he has reported extensively throughout Latin America.

Jasper Ward is a breaking news reporter in Washington. She primarily covers national affairs and U.S. politics. Jasper was previously based in The Bahamas where she covered the collapse of FTX and the subsequent arrest of its founder Sam Bankman-Fried. She was a part of the Reuters team that won the Gerald Loeb Award for breaking news for its FTX coverage.

It was not clear what Dmitriev discussed with the U.S. officials.

But his visit comes after President Donald Trump expressed his frustration with the pace of ceasefire talks, saying on Sunday he was “pissed off” with Putin and raising the possibility of imposing sanctions on those who buy Russian crude. Russia is the world’s second largest exporter of crude after Saudi Arabia.

Steve Witkoff, a Trump envoy who has taken the lead on the Trump administration’s contacts with the Kremlin, invited Dmitriev to the United States last week, said the U.S. officials. The White House directed the State Department to issue a short-term license for Dmitriev to travel to the country, a necessary step as Dmitriev faces U.S. sanctions, the officials said.

Dmitriev may be key in repairing relations that were, until Trump’s January inauguration, the worst between Moscow and Washington since the most dangerous junctures of the Cold War.

The Russian envoy played a role in early contacts with the U.S. when Trump was first elected president in 2016, as well as in building relations with Saudi Arabia, which led to an oil price agreement under the expanded OPEC+ producers’ forum.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration notably did not include Russia on an expansive list of countries that will face major new tariffs. Ukraine was slapped with a 10% levy, according to a fact sheet released by the White House.

Trump has expressed frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who he said was trying to renegotiate a minerals deal.

Over recent weeks, Dmitriev has mentioned a host of initiatives in which Russia and the United States could work together, from investment, rare earths and energy to the Arctic, space and cooperation with Elon Musk.

Reporting by Erin Banco and Humeyra Pamuk in Washington and Gleb Stolyarov in Moscow; Additional reporting by Guy Faulconbridge in Moscow; Writing by Gram Slattery; Editing by Ros Russell

Erin Banco is a national security correspondent focusing on the intelligence community. She covers everything from the wars in Ukraine and Gaza to U.S. covert operations overseas. She previously worked at POLITICO as a national security reporter. Banco has a long history covering the Middle East region, from Cairo to Baghdad to Aleppo where she’s reported on the Arab Spring and its aftermath, including the civil war in Syria and the rise of ISIS. Her 2017 book, Pipe Dreams, focuses on the development of the oil and gas industry in the northern Kurdistan region of Iraq. Banco attended The University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she majored in Arabic and journalism. She earned a master’s in public administration from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in 2014.

Humeyra Pamuk is a senior foreign policy correspondent based in Washington DC. She covers the U.S. State Department, regularly traveling with U.S. Secretary of State. During her 20 years with Reuters, she has had postings in London, Dubai, Cairo and Turkey, covering everything from the Arab Spring and Syria’s civil war to numerous Turkish elections and the Kurdish insurgency in the southeast. In 2017, she won the Knight-Bagehot fellowship program at Columbia University’s School of Journalism. She holds a BA in International Relations and an MA on European Union studies.

He was not the only Cassandra issuing a warning about this. Many people inside and outside the government predicted that Ukraine, and to a lesser extent, the region of Georgia, was a trip wire for the Russians, and it did not matter who the leader in Moscow was. In fact, years ago, National Security Council Russian specialist Fiona Hill advised against bringing Georgia and Ukraine into the western alliance. She warned Vice President Dick Cheney against it. Why? Because so many of our allies in Europe opposed it and the Russians would regard it as a provocation. (Scott Horton, Provoked, p. 446)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates also opposed marching NATO east to Ukraine and Georgia. He specifically pointed out that the NATO agreement rotating troops through bases in Romania and Bulgaria was a taunting type of mistake. With that example, Ukraine and Georgia would be needlessly overreaching. Russian scholar Michael Mandelbaum wrote that this Ukraine policy was irrelevant and at worst counterproductive. He also labeled it political in nature. (Foreign Affairs, May/June 1995)

Another former Secretary of Defense, William Perry also complained about an unwise eastward policy. He said it would be provocative to the Russians. The reply Perry got on this is revealing of the arrogance motivating this movement: “Who cares what they think? They’re a third rate power.” As he then added, that message got through to Moscow. (Guardian, March 9, 2016, story by Julian Borger)

French president Jacques Chirac warned, “We have humiliated them too much. One day there will be a dangerous nationalist backlash.” (Meeting memo by Anthony Lake, 1/1/96) Veteran diplomat Dennis Ross said the same thing: this would be too humiliating for Russia, and the nationalists would have a field day in Moscow. (Horton, p. 130) Perhaps the wisest and most experienced Russian expert in America, former USSR diplomat George Kennan, was also formally against it. In the New York Times he called this movement east no less than “A Fateful Error”. (2/5/97) He told reporter Thomas Friedman, “I think NATO expansion is the beginning of a new Cold War.” (Friedman, NY Times, 5/2/98)

Kennan’s last comment accented the real problem. Combined with the sneering at what America thought was now a third rate power, marching NATO up to the Russian border was, in essence, igniting Cold War 2. Nixon/Reagan speechwriter Pat Buchanan—a former violent Cold Warrior—warned that it could cause the replacement of the compliant Boris Yeltsin with an anti-American nationalist. If that happened the blame “must rest squarely with a haughty US elite that has done its best to humiliate Russia.” He then pointedly asked: “Why are we doing this….the Soviet empire is dead….a friendly Russia is far more critical to US security than any alliance with Warsaw or Prague.” (Horton, p. 121)

In the face of all these warnings—and many more– what made this irresistible motion east so questionable was this: Russia asked to join NATO thrice. The first time was Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev to Secretary of State James Baker, the second was under Bill Clinton and the third was under Bush 2. All three offers were either ignored or sloughed off. (Ibid, p. 63, pp. 329-339) Would not this puzzling “everybody but us” action, make Moscow wonder–as Kennan and Buchanan suggested—that the motive for the march was to revive the Cold War? Except this time Moscow’s former allies in the Warsaw Pact would be arrayed against them. And this time the march would lead right up to the Russian border. Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the USSR, warned against precisely that. (Responsible Statecraft, 2/15/2022)

Giving all this a multiplier effect were the lies involved in the step by step encroachment eastward. It began with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. That milestone caused the neoconservative movement to puff itself up into Goliath type dimensions. As the late journalist and author Charles Krauthammer wrote, now with the USSR gone, it was America’s unipolar moment, the USA could remake the world as its leaders saw fit. (Foreign Affairs, 1/1/90) He was not alone. Journalist and publisher Bill Kristol and columnist Robert Kagan labeled it the moment of “benevolent global hegemony.” (Foreign Affairs, July/August 1996) Undersecretary of Defense for Obama, Michele Flournoy, talked about a military posture of Full Spectrum Dominance. (Horton, p. 40) In his book The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, said it was a moment of predominance.

Make no mistake, this attitude was prevalent in the halls of power under people working Russian affairs in the State Department. A prime example being diplomat Victoria Nuland, Kagan’s wife. (Horton, p. 443) And also in congress, with men like senators John McCain and Joe Biden. It was the time to stomp on Russia. (The Hill, 3//16/17, story by Daniel Depetris; NY Times, 3/30/98 story by Eric Schmitt)

All this is to show that America was not going into this dangerous march toward Ukraine with eyes shut. We were doing it with ample warnings. The neocons, and I am including Hillary Clinton under that rubric, won out in the end. But because of all these red flags, the US tried to hide its real motives. In some cases it outright lied.

The lies began with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Krauthammer saw this as a wedge to move the world: “I suggest we go all the way and stop at nothing short of universal domination.” (The National Interest, Winter 1989/90). The neocons thought German unification could mark the start of the American dominion of all Europe through NATO. But if that was to occur, Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev would have to get his troops out of eastern Europe and dissolve the Warsaw Pact. Margaret Thatcher of Britain was against German unification because she knew Gorbachev was hesitant to do it. (Irish Times, 12/28/19, story by Harry McGee)

President George H. W Bush and Secretary of State James Baker went around Thatcher. They cajoled Gorbachev into doing those things with the promise that once Germany was one, NATO would not move east at all. That this was agreed to was proven by notes posted at George Washington University in both 2017 and 2018. (Svetlana Savranskaya “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard”, National Security Archive, December 12, 2017). This pledge came from the president himself. (op. cit. Matlock). And in February of 1990, at a joint press conference, Baker and West German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich stated that NATO had no intention of moving toward the East. (UPI story by Jim Anderson of 2/2/90). This pledge was made from Baker to Gorbachev no less than six times.(Horton, p. 50). When on November 26, 2009 the German magazine Der Spiegel reviewed the record, they concluded:

….there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

Gorbachev acted on these supposed pledges. Russian troops were moved out of eastern Europe and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded in 1991. Turned out it was all a smoke screen. For in July of 1990 Baker alluded to the expansion of NATO for those who wanted out of the Warsaw pact. (Horton, p. 64) Just a few days after German unification was complete, in a private NATO memo in advance of a meeting, this statement appeared: “Should the United States and NATO now signal to the new democracies of Eastern Europe NATO’s readiness to contemplate their future membership?” (ibid, p. 66)

What makes this dual track even worse is that on August 1, 1991—the eve of Ukraine declaring independence– President Bush specifically said he would not participate in choosing between Gorbachev and independence leaders in order “to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism.” So quite naturally not only did Gorbachev buy into the overt promises, so did his successor Boris Yeltsin. To the point he thought Russia could join NATO down the line. (LA Times, 12/21/91, story by William Tuohy and Norman Kempster) But to be fair, its an open question whether or not Bush and Baker ever considered extending NATO as far east as Ukraine.

There is little question that the Clinton administration, especially under Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, did consider it. Bill Clinton had an opportunity to snuff out the embers of any kind of Cold War 2. He did not. This despite Moscow pulling its troops out of Eastern Europe and downsizing its army by 70% during the Clinton years. (Congressional Research Staff report of 9/4/97) In fact it was under Clinton that NATO began moving dramatically east with the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary joining in 1999. Clinton did this over strenuous objections by Yeltsin. In so doing Yeltsin reminded the new president of the previous promises made by the prior White House. (Yeltsin letter of 9/15/93) Secretary of State Warren Christopher assured Yeltsin Clinton would not expand the NATO alliance. (Horton, p. 102) Again, as with Bush I, this was a conscious ruse. For the decision to move eastward was made around the same time. (Albright, Madam Secretary: A Memoir, p. 167)

On January 12, 1994 the mask was dropped. In Prague, Clinton stated, “The question is no longer whether NATO will take on new members, but when and how.” Yeltsin was enraged, and when he saw Clinton two days later he told him, if such were the case, then Russia had to join first. Clinton ignored the request. (US Embassy cable to State, 1/14/94) Six months later, Clinton said the same thing in a speech in Warsaw. Again, Yeltsin said Russia was to join first. Again, this plea was ignored.

Question: Considering this repeated pattern—announcement, a request and then denial– how could Moscow not think that expansion was aimed at them?

In fact a State Department official admitted to the Poles that fooling Russia with feints was the intent. The falsity began with Germany and would now be extended to Eastern Europe. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake admitted the same: it was a charade designed to contain Russia. And it would lead up to a possible membership for Ukraine. (Horton, p. 108)

By 1995, Yeltsin finally understood Clinton was lying. He told him directly that he could not agree to expanding NATO to the borders of Russia. It would be a betrayal of the Russian people and it would constitute nothing but humiliation if it happened. It would be a new form of encirclement. He concluded with the most crucial question: Why do you want to do this? (Summary of meeting at Kremlin May 10, 1995)

The other problem was: how could anyone say that NATO was simply a defensive alliance? Not after the massive and continuous bombings of Kosovo and then Libya. And it was the Clintons—Bill and then Hillary—who were behind those two assaults. Just like it was Hillary Clinton who pushed NATO expansionist Madeleine Albright on her husband for Secretary of State.

As we know, first three new states joined NATO in 1999. Then seven in 2004; two more in 2009 and finally Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020. In other words, after the Cold War had ended, NATO doubled its membership. This, even though the ostensible reason for its existence–a communist threat from the USSR–did not exist anymore. Russia was not a communist country and the USSR had broken up. Russia was shrinking not expanding.

As early as 1997, Clinton began a process for considering Ukraine as a member of NATO. This was 4 months after Yeltsin had told him specifically not to do so. (Memorandum of Helsinki meeting 3/21/97)

Things got worse under Bush II. He withdrew from the ABM Treaty of 1972. He then announced that he would place defensive missiles in Romania and Poland, and radars in the Czech Republic. When asked what these were for, with a straight face, he said Iran. (Corey Flintoff, NPR News, 10/28/ 2007) What made this worse was that these defensive systems, the MK 41, are capable of being switched to offensive Tomahawk cruise missiles which can he armed with H bombs. (Posted at Foreign Policy web site, January 12, 2022, article by Jack Detsch) Then there was the planned stationing of F-16’s in the Baltics, now also part of NATO. (Steven Myers, NY Times, 4/3/2004)

What happened to empathy in diplomacy? When the time was ripe for a real détente, Clinton had abused Yeltsin and humiliated Russia. Now Bush 2 was arming an eastward NATO, a grouping his father promised would never exist. As the NY Times wrote, “To Russia, at least, the meaning is clear: the alliance still views it as a potential enemy rather than a partner.” (Thom Shanker, NY Times, 8/15/2004)

As Pat Buchanan predicted, this is what led to the rise of Vladimir Putin.