Branko Radun: Russia Between Trump’s “Carrot” and NATO’s “Stick”
Putin and Witkoff talked for nearly five hours. Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign-policy adviser, described the meeting as useful, constructive, and significant. The conversation was confidential, yet Ushakov stressed that every American draft proposal is framed as a “long-term solution” – which, translated into plain language, means the core of the U.S. plan is to gain access to the heart of Russia’s energy sector and secure control over gas flows, money streams, and Arctic resources.
The Kremlin meeting produced no breakthrough on Ukraine. According to Ushakov, the talks were indeed “useful, constructive, and significant,” but the American proposals are seen as a long-term framework that fails to adequately address Russian demands – especially territorial compensations that could be sold to the domestic audience as some kind of success. Russia has no real alternative but to continue military operations and, if possible, worsen the situation on Ukraine’s front lines in order to force Washington to come up with a more realistic and less humiliating exit plan.
That said, Russia is not waging the war with full decisive force. Partly it is holding back so as not to antagonize the United States too much; partly because the domestic public (and most of the elite, who were against this conflict from day one) have already had enough of war. Trump keeps repeating that continuing the war makes no sense when both sides are losing 25,000–30,000 soldiers every month – horrifying numbers – yet he uses that very argument to pressure Moscow into accepting a deal that would amount to a quiet defeat.
This dynamic could still lead to a moderate escalation, particularly if Europe ramps up its military and financial support, even though Europe itself has almost no say in the process and is being pushed into a war that is absolutely not in its interest – and even less in Ukraine’s. Europe has become a vassal obliged to finance both the war and Ukraine’s eventual reconstruction, whether with its own money or with confiscated Russian assets. Ukraine has turned into an American and British asset; there is no longer any genuine European or Russian presence there. And crucially, it is not an asset of Trump’s faction, but of the globalists and liberal interventionists.
At the Kremlin table they spoke about “economic cooperation between the U.S. and Russia” – code for America moving into Russia’s energy sector and taking control of pipelines and cash flows – but the real focus was obviously Ukraine. They reviewed the essence of the American plans, though not the details. Naturally, there is still no agreement on a Putin–Trump summit, because Russia is not yet ready for a “quiet capitulation,” and the proposals are not only deeply damaging but outright humiliating. Meanwhile Ukraine, under heavy British influence, rejects even that watered-down version. We are still very far from any deal. This was less a breakthrough than classic American diplomatic probing to test how far Russia is willing to bend. Moscow rejected parts of the offer and is playing the role of the “offended party,” while Ukraine and Europe – led from London – are busy revising the plans to make them even less palatable to the Kremlin.
Everyone admits there is still a “long road ahead,” but without real concessions this is just another lap in a marathon where territory and security guarantees remain absolute red lines. Unless something unexpected happens (a military reversal, for instance), peace is not in sight anytime soon.Russia is cornered, while Trump is balancing between two wings of Anglo-Saxon policy, trying to extract some kind of success without fully yielding to pressure from the other American circles.
The biggest media nonsense is the claim that the United States is pursuing a “balanced” approach. America is waging a full-blown proxy war against Russia through Ukraine. It doesn’t merely arm and train the Ukrainian military; it effectively runs it logistically: American and Western instructors and mercenaries are on the ground, U.S. generals draw up operational plans, Western intelligence feeds Kyiv real-time data every day, American satellites serve as the Ukrainian army’s communication backbone, American and Western drones strike Russian cities and bases, U.S. media are 100 % pro-Ukrainian, American sanctions hammer Russia, and Washington forced the EU to impose the same sanctions. Under international law the United States is a belligerent, and Russia would be fully entitled to treat it as such. Yet Moscow has no desire for open war with America and NATO, so it pretends these are “minor details.” On the other side, it suits Washington perfectly to remain merely “Ukraine’s friend” – or, in Trump’s case, to play the honest broker.
The cherry on top are the attacks on Trump from liberal American and British circles branding him “pro-Russian.” There is no balance here whatsoever. Both wings of U.S. policy ultimately want the same thing: Russia’s defeat and control over its resources. The difference is tactical: the pragmatic wing wants an armistice so it can consolidate Ukraine and pivot to China, while the liberal-crusader wing (with neocons at the spearhead) wants Russia crushed as quickly as possible.The narrative that Ukraine is being asked to make territorial concessions is not entirely accurate. What is really on offer is a trade: Russia would give up strategically vital directions (e.g., Kharkov) in exchange for empty fields in Donbas, plus handing the Zaporozhye nuclear plant over to “international” (i.e., Western) administration. Everything in that package is damaging and humiliating for Russia, yet Britain, NATO, and liberal U.S. circles attack Trump for being “pro-Russian.” This reveals both the split between the two Anglo-Saxon factions on one level and their synchronized “good cop / bad cop” routine on another.The fundamental fact of this war is that Ukraine is a key American and British asset – but not Trump’s asset; it belongs to the globalists and interventionists.
Trump’s “balancing act” between the Anglo-Saxon factions – where his only real opposition is London – is designed to produce an outcome acceptable to both sides. America is not balancing between Russia and Ukraine; it is balancing between two streams of Anglo-Saxon power: official Washington on one side, and London plus segments of the U.S. deep state on the other. Europe, NATO, and Ukraine are merely players and mouthpieces of the latter, globalist stream.
Russia is trapped: it must choose between a bad peace (which is de facto recognition of defeat and the certainty that its frozen Western assets will be used to rebuild Ukraine) and an increasingly costly military campaign with no victory in sight. Meanwhile Europe, by egging on further conflict, only prolongs Ukraine’s suffering and inflicts massive economic damage on itself. If the EU truly pursued its own interests, it would follow the Orbán–Fico line, but as a marionette of London and Washington it does what its masters order.Here’s the game: Witkoff and Trump play the “good cop” who dangles territorial concessions in Donbas (the carrot) in exchange for far greater Russian concessions on military, political, and above all energy issues – Americans taking stakes in Russia’s energy sector, control over pipelines to Europe, joint exploitation of the Arctic, etc. It’s bait: accept the deal and sell it at home as victory. There is also the very real scenario in which Russia caves, only for Ukraine to drag its feet on implementation later – the Balkan playbook (Dayton, Brussels agreements).
Trump is balancing between those who say “now we can get a peace that is an American victory, a weakened Europe, and a Russian defeat” and the other faction insisting “that’s not enough.”All the while Russia is accused of blocking peace in Europe with “unrealistic demands.” The spokesmen of the globalist wing – London and NATO – declare that Moscow is “unwilling to make concessions,” which in plain English means “Moscow refuses to capitulate.” The Kremlin is right to accuse Europe of sabotage, but it won’t name the real masters outright, because it is still negotiating with them.In short, Russia faces two bad options: a lousy peace or an even worse war, while Europe – egged on from London, Trump’s only real opposition – prolongs Ukraine’s agony and destabilizes itself. Zelensky warns that the U.S. might “lose interest” in the peace process and that this is Russia’s goal – a coded message to his handlers in London that perhaps they should accept Trump’s plan after all, provided Russia makes a few more concessions.
We come full circle: Trump is balancing between two streams of Anglo-Saxon power, while London pushes Europe into a war that is not in its interest and drags the continent toward catastrophe.Russia insists Ukraine must never join NATO, and formally that will be granted – it won’t be a member. Yet through American security guarantees it will end up more integrated into NATO than France itself. “It’s not the neck, it’s the throat,” as the saying goes – but it gives Russia something it can sell domestically as a win.Russia is in a tough spot with no easy way out, having walked into the 2022 Ukraine trap, while Europe – whipped up by globalists and London – refuses to listen to the American administration and backs a war that will be its own undoing. Nothing is as it seems: Trump is neither a peacemaker nor pro-Russian; London and NATO do not care about Ukrainian sovereignty; the European war-mongering does not come from Europe itself; and Ukraine’s suicidal rejection of the cunning anti-Russian “peace” Trump is dangling before Putin is anything but independent.
Branko Radun
