Trump calls Zelensky a dictator, blames Ukraine for the war + Russia/US talks in Saudi Arabia, and Turkey re-enters the arena to support Ukraine.

Trump going full “Russia Today” mode: a week of strategic surrender culminates in an outright delusional pro-Kremlin voice.

• The Kremlin tightens the noose one week after the Trump administration delivered a series of unilateral, unprompted concessions to Moscow to start the negotiations to “end” the war in Ukraine.

• And on the very same day that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Envoy Steve Witkoff were in Saudi Arabia for further talks, Trump took the stage at Mar-a-Lago and delivered what could only be described as a propaganda victory of historic proportions for Russia.

• (side note: notably absent from these negotiations was the retired General and Ukraine Envoy Keith Kellogg, the only member of Trump’s circle with a realistic grasp of the dangers of engaging Putin without imposing costs. His exclusion speaks volumes.)

• What Trump said in his press conference was so staggeringly aligned with Moscow’s messaging, so lacking in any semblance of diplomatic or strategic sense, that it could have been a test run for a “Russia Today” anchor audition.

• And not just any “Russia Today” anchor—a reckless, unpolished amateur, because even Russian state propagandists, aiming to influence Western audiences, avoid being this brazen.

• Their disinformation is more subtle: they imply, they misdirect, they spread doubt and whataboutism.

• Trump, however, abandoned all restraint.

• His most shocking claim?

• That Ukraine “started” the war.

• This assertion is so historically revisionist, so factually indefensible, that it borders on the absurd.

• It would be the equivalent of blaming the U.S. for Pearl Harbor in 1941.

• Ukraine was invaded in real-time, on live television, with Putin justifying it hours earlier in an unhinged speech where he openly stated that he did not even consider Ukraine a real country.

• This wasn’t a hidden memo or a leak—it was an explicit, public rejection of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

• Yet, Trump blamed Ukraine.

• Even before the first missiles hit Kyiv in February 2022, there was no ambiguity about Russia’s intent.

• In July 2021, Putin himself published a lengthy, irredentist essay—still available on the Kremlin’s official website—where he argued that Ukraine had no legitimate historical claim to statehood and should, by right, be integrated into Russia.

• The groundwork for war was laid out in writing, by Putin himself.

• But according to Trump, the aggressor wasn’t Moscow, but Kyiv.

• The implications of this statement are exceptionally dangerous.

• If Trump 1) actually believes this, it means he sees no reason for the U.S. to continue supporting Ukraine. But if he 2) doesn’t believe it but says it anyway, then he is actively promoting Russian disinformation.

• Either way, the near-term result is the same: the most important geopolitical actor in Ukraine’s survival is now undermining its legitimacy at the highest level.

Trump’s Attack on Zelensky: Playing Directly into Putin’s Hands

• Trump didn’t stop there however.

• He then criticized Zelensky for not holding elections, as if Ukraine is a normal, peacetime democracy.

• This argument is detached from reality.

• Ukraine is fighting for its very existence, with 20% of its territory under occupation and a 1,000-mile front where entire cities are shelled into rubble daily. How does one hold an election in such a scenario?

• When even the most basic duties of the state (like evacuations and providing basic electricity) are under an impossible stress?

• Should voting booths be placed in occupied Mariupol under the oversight of Russian FSB operatives?

• Should ballots be distributed to soldiers mid-combat? Should Ukraine divert critical resources from defending against a genocidal war to organizing an election that, in practical terms, would only take place in the western half of the country?

• (side note: ironically, the only areas that could plausibly be remotely pro-Russia have been devastated and fallen under Russia’s occupation. In other words, the significant proportion of the electorate that would plausibly vote against Zelensky the most, have either 1) left their homes and moved to Russia or 2) live under current Russian occupation, and are thus currently unreachable by Ukraine.)

• Moreover, history demolishes Trump’s argument.

• The United Kingdom, under Churchill, did not hold elections for ten years during World War II.

• If Ukraine is “undemocratic” for suspending elections in wartime, then so was Britain.

• And for that matter, Churchill himself was never elected in a general election by the public before assuming power—unlike Zelensky, who won by an overwhelming democratic mandate in 2019.

• Then, the final absurdity: Trump falsely claimed that Zelensky has a 4% approval rating.

• In reality, Zelensky’s approval hovers around 60%, outperforming Trump’s own numbers in the U.S.

• The strategic effect? Unambiguous: Putin gains.

• Every line Trump spoke weakened Ukraine’s standing and validated Russian propaganda.

Moscow’s Initial Terms in Saudi Arabia: Maximum Demands, Zero Concessions.

• If Trump’s administration expected that this public messaging would translate into goodwill from the Kremlin, they fundamentally misread the adversary.

• Predictably, Putin responded by escalating his demands.

• In Tuesday’s negotiations, Russia pushed for three non-starters:

• 1. That NATO must officially and permanently revoke open invitation (from 2008) to join Nato ‘‘one day”.

• 2. That NATO and European nations must not send peacekeepers to Ukraine—an “unacceptable” proposal, according to Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov.

• 3. That all currently Russia-occupied territories must be legally recognized as part of Russia.

• (side note: Russia didn’t say this openly, but indirectly: via reference to original reasons for the war + outstanding legal issues.)

• These are not negotiating positions - they are ultimatums designed to humiliate the West.

• Russia does not expect Ukraine or Europe to agree to them—rather, it is a power play allowing for maximum optionality and causing strategic dilemmas for the West:

• If 1) U.S. even engages with these terms, it signals weakness and causes further rift with Europe and Ukraine (divide & conquer), and if 2) Washington rejects them outright, Putin still wins by extending negotiations indefinitely while advancing his military objectives on the ground and accumulating further leverage in the process.

Trump’s Negotiators: From Realists to Fantasists.

• Meanwhile, the reaction from Trump’s negotiating team was one of bizarre optimism.

• Rubio, who once denounced Putin as a liar (and berated American leaders for not recognizing the basic fact) and signed Senate letters accusing Russian GRU operatives of killing Americans, is now publicly suggesting that the U.S. should explore the possibility of partnering with Russia:

• ‘‘Lay the groundwork for future cooperation on matters of mutual geopolitical interest and historic economic and investment opportunities which will emerge from a successful end to the conflict in Ukraine. [emphasis added]”

• What exactly are these geopolitical opportunities?

• The only possible charitable interpretation is the fantasy that the U.S. can drive a wedge between Russia and China.

• But this is a fundamental misreading of history.

• In the 1970s, Kissinger did not cause the Sino-Soviet split; he capitalized on a fracture that had already resulted in border clashes between the USSR and China in1960s.

• Today, there is no such split: Russia is not merely an ally of China—it is economically and militarily dependent on it.

• Beijing supplies dual-use technology, financial lifelines, and diplomatic cover.

• If China severed ties, Russia’s war effort would collapse within months. Washington’s belief that it can repeat a Kissinger-style maneuver is not just naive—it is strategically dangerous.

• (side note: we will do a deeper dive with details on why this is an attempt doomed to fail.)

Turkey’s Intervention: A Lone Bright Spot On the day that the U.S. stumbles.

• Turkey is stepping in.

• In a significant diplomatic move, Erdogan hosted Zelensky in Istanbul on the very day of Russia - US negotiations.

• Erdogan explicitly reaffirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and how this must be the basic starting point for any future negotiations.

• This is not just posturing: since 2022, Turkey has played a pivotal role—blocking Russian naval movements through the Montreux Convention, supplying Ukraine with critical arms, and maintaining diplomatic channels.

• Zelensky reciprocated by advocating for Turkey’s direct involvement in future negotiations.

• This matters: If Washington retreats, regional actors will take up the slack.

• Indeed, Turkey and the EU should work closer together to strengthen support for Ukraine.

• And this is already happening: Turkey is aiming to become a military-industrial powerhouse for Europe and there are even revived talks of Turkey joining the EU.

As Washington Withdraws, European Allies Step In.

• Near-term implications are a mixture of bleak and slivers of hope:

• 1. Trump’s rhetoric is indistinguishable from Kremlin propaganda. The leader of the Republican Party is actively advancing Russian strategic narratives, sabotaging Ukraine’s standing.

• 2. Russia, sensing weakness, is escalating. Moscow is treating past U.S. concessions as the baseline and now pushing for even greater gains.

• 3. Washington’s belief in a Russo-Chinese split is delusional. There is no plausible scenario where Moscow abandons Beijing anytime soon.

• 4. The UK and Turkey are filling the void.

• With U.S. policy adrift, London and Ankara are emerging as the primary diplomatic counterweight to Russia’s maximalist war aims.

• (side note: after the elections on February 23, Germany could join this European line-up as well.)

• For Ukraine, the conclusion is clear: a pivot away from reliance on Washington and toward deeper European and regional partnerships.

• For now, unfortunately the battlefield, not the negotiating table, remains the only viable path to securing Ukraine’s sovereignty: and Kyiv’s European allies must accept this reality and massively escalate their military aid to Ukraine.

• No more hesitation, no more limits, no more restriction on weapon use arising from the fears of the Kremlin’s red lines.