Implications of Trump's Unilateral and unprompted concessions to Russia. Part I: Incentives mix for Putin and variety of interests he will pursue.

Trump’s Unilateral Concessions to Russia: Strategic Implications.

• Yesterday, we discussed how Trump has, in effect, given unilateral and unprompted concessions to Russia as a starting point for negotiations with Putin.

• Since that post, it has also become apparent why retired General and Ukraine Envoy Keith Kellogg has not been included in a U.S. delegation heading to Saudi Arabia next week.

• Kellogg, the only rational and strategic thinker on Trump’s team, was quick to insist that the U.S. must get something in return for any deal with Russia.

• He advocated that the U.S. should either force Russia to give up some of the territory it has seized or work to break its new alliances with (like with North Korea and Iran)—or both.

• This is a novel approach.

• The idea of breaking up Russia’s alliances is something that neither Trump, nor his Secretary of State, Defense, or National Security Advisor, have ever articulated.

• However, Kellogg’s stance is aggressive and uncharacteristic of Trump’s current trajectory, which is focused on unilateral concessions.

• Trump’s decision to offer these concessions and start negotiations from a weak position will create complex and possibly perverse dynamics.

• There are at least four key consequences likely to emerge: