Trump - Putin Phone Call: Early Results And Risks From Endless Strategic Concessions.
Trump-Putin Call on Ukraine Ceasefire.
The long-awaited, long-announced conversation - a phone call - between Trump and Putin on a potential ceasefire in Ukraine has now concluded.
Before diving into the preliminary results, it’s important to acknowledge the clear asymmetry of interest and desire in having this phone call to begin with.
Leading up to it, Trump repeatedly hyped up what he described as “good conversation” and “good talks” with Putin.
Russian Perspective: Putin’s Calculated Aloofness.
Interestingly, there was little visible enthusiasm from the Russian side regarding this conversation.
Putin maintained a “hard-to-get” posture, making it appear as though he was doing Trump a favor by taking the call.
However, in reality, Putin holds a weaker hand—especially if U.S. allies fully commit to supporting Ukraine.
This dismissive attitude was evident even on the day of the call.
Putin, while speaking at a conference, was informed that he might be late for the scheduled conversation with Trump.
He casually waved away his hands, indicating that punctuality for this call was not a priority for him.
This cool, detached demeanor starkly contrasts with Trump’s visible eagerness to engage.
Misinformation and False Narratives Leading Up To The Conversation.
There were early indications that Trump was preparing to frame any potential Russian concessions as victories he had personally secured.
This included his repeated but false insistence that Ukrainian troops in Kursk were facing “complete encirclement” and that Putin was sparing their lives due to Trump’s intervention.
(side note: this was also a good preemptive excuse to not press Putin too hard for genuine concessions. As in: I already got some wins.)
This claim is entirely false.
The reality is: Ukraine has managed an orderly withdrawal from the Kursk region, avoiding heavy casualties.
Russia, on the other hand, is implicated in the execution of captured Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk.
Putin made no concessions regarding the safety of Ukrainian troops—there was no “favor” extended.
Yet, Trump appears to live in a misinformation bubble, seemingly influenced by far-right conspiracy theories circulating on social media rather than intelligence briefings.
This approach to information consumption is reminiscent of Elon Musk’s own media diet, which often promotes similar disinformation.
Key Outcomes of the Trump-Putin Call.
The phone call resulted in the following agreements:
1. A Partial Ceasefire – Russia agreed to halt attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and energy targets for a 30-day period (in return for the same).
However, how likely is it to hold? Indeed, just an hour after the phone call, and at the time when Trump was boasting about these results, Russia-launched Shahed drones were attacking the very energy & infrastructure targets mentioned in the initial agreement.
In addition, (and while Russia is unlikely to abide by the terms of this ceasefire) the U.S. will likely pressure Kyiv into stopping attacks on Russian refineries—granting Moscow a reprieve in a crucial domain where its own efforts to cripple Ukraine’s energy infrastructure have fallen short.
(side note: of course, the integrity of this infrastructure network will come under bigger threat if the U.S. was to withhold additional air-defense interceptor deliveries to Ukraine (and Europeans were to fail in closing in the gap in the meantime).
Finally, what about other civilian targets like Ukrainian hospitals (which get bombed with high frequency)?
Overall, we have a situation where Russia’s restraint is unlikely to last (indeed, it was broken within an hour) and Ukraine is likely to face pressure from Washington to refrain from attacking oil refineries in Russia.
2. A Black Sea Ceasefire Task Force – Both sides agreed to form a task force to negotiate a ceasefire in the Black Sea region.
But here too, Ukraine has little to gain - it has successfully broken through the blockade and pushed the Russian Navy out of Sevastopol (Crimea) and forced relocation to Novorossiysk (after destroying a number of Russian ships and submarines).
Ceasefire here benefits Russia more than Ukraine.
In addition, Putin demanded that during any ceasefire, Ukraine should be prevented from receiving arms, support, or mobilizing troops.
This demand, in effect, would leave Ukraine defenseless and at Russia’s mercy—allowing Putin to resume attacks at will.
This requirement is absurd and fundamentally unacceptable.
(side note: there is no indication so far that even Trump, despite his apparent desire to appease Putin, entertained this idea seriously).
Art of The Horrible Deal: A Reset on Moscow’s Terms?
A careful reading of the Trump-Putin call readout from the White House suggests that Russia conceded nothing and may have secured a strategic advantage.
Washington’s rhetoric aligns with Russia’s core narrative.
The statement that the war “should never have started” and that it ought to have been resolved through “good faith peace efforts” implicitly shifts blame away from Moscow.
Russia’s long-standing argument—that it is not the aggressor but rather a victim of Western intransigence—just received yet another validation from the White House.
Beyond Ukraine, the readout reframes the war as a bilateral issue between Moscow and Washington, sidelining Europe entirely.
This echoes Cold War-era great power spheres of influence, where decisions about Eastern Europe were brokered between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Even more telling, the discussion expanded beyond Ukraine to include Middle East issues, suggesting that Russia sees itself as returning to a peer-to-peer dynamic with the U.S., much like during the Cold War.
The peer-to-peer status is of course what Putin wants.
Putin, for his part, made no new offers and reaffirmed maximalist demands:
A full cessation of Western military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv
No Ukrainian mobilization, no armament, and no foreign-backed military presence
Assertions that the “Kyiv regime” is incapable of negotiating—a veiled reference to regime change aspirations.
Put simply, Russia has not softened its position.
Putin continues to insist that any agreement must resolve the “initial causes of the crisis” and respect Russia’s security interests—a phrase that, in practice, means dismantling Ukrainian independence and undoing the post-Cold War security order in Europe.
Perhaps most revealing is that the White House appears even more eager for a reset than Moscow.
The closing paragraph of the U.S. statement emphasizes “enormous economic deals” and “geopolitical stability” from improved U.S.-Russia relations, contradicting basic macroeconomic logic.
This suggests that Washington may be prepared to grant major concessions in the name of securing a new détente.
The call’s focus on “mutually beneficial cooperation” in economics and energy suggests that Moscow sees this moment not as a crisis to resolve, but as an opportunity to reshape the geopolitical balance—on its terms.
Strategic Implications for Europe and Ukraine.
Regardless of Trump’s stance, Europe must continue to arm Ukraine and reinforce its defenses.
As EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized, Ukraine must be turned into a “steel porcupine” to deter further Russian aggression.
Encouragingly, Germany’s newly approved $1 trillion budget allocates hundreds of billions to defense, positioning Germany as a key player in military support for Ukraine.
(side note: notably, Rheinmetall, Germany’s leading defense manufacturer, is even exploring the conversion of Volkswagen assembly lines into tank and armored vehicle production facilities—a signal of the growing militarization of European industry in response to Russian aggression.)
The Trump-Putin call underscores a fundamental realignment in global politics, one that U.S. allies must swiftly respond to.
While Trump appears eager to cultivate personal rapport with adversarial leaders, strategic realities demand that Europe (and the Indo-Pacific) brace for the potential consequences of an American foreign policy driven by personal relationships rather than enduring alliances.
Ultimately, the burden of preserving the liberal rules-based international order may now rest more heavily on America’s allies than ever before.
And in the short-term, Europe must do all that is possible to guarantee Ukraine’s ability to withstand pressure from both the U.S. and Russia.