"This Is a Ticket to World War": Bezsmertny on Putin's Plan and the Threat to Trump

The Donald Trump administration continues to seek agreements with Russia, even though the Kremlin shows no willingness to back down from its demands on Ukraine. At the same time, discussions are underway regarding a possible summit between the leaders of the U.S., Russia, and China, which Moscow may try to present as the beginning of a new world order.

Adv

Witkoff’s Negotiations with Putin

Steve Witkoff proposed to Putin that trilateral negotiations involving Ukraine, Russia, and the U.S. be resumed. At the same time, the Financial Times describes two possible scenarios: a freeze of the war along the front lines without Ukraine's accession to NATO, or concessions regarding the rest of Donbas in exchange for NATO membership. Could these options truly form the basis of a peace agreement?

First and foremost, I want to give credit to Gideon Rachman, the author of the Financial Times article. He is an outstanding journalist with a very deep understanding of international politics. But his piece must be interpreted correctly: it is an analytical vision of how events might unfold, not an agreed-upon document that is already on the negotiating table.

Trump, in my view, has long since decided internally that Ukraine will not become a NATO member. And Putin has no fundamental interest in preserving Ukraine as a state, regardless of exactly which borders are at issue.

That’s why all these scenarios seem rather hypothetical. As a civilized person, Rachman is looking for a way out of the situation because he understands that the loss of life must be stopped. When you see a baby stroller in Kharkiv with a one-year-old child who has been killed, it’s impossible not to react. You want to find at least some way to stop this horrific carnage.

But Trump and Putin are guided by entirely different considerations. For them, saving lives is not the top priority.

We’ve already seen what Russia has offered the Americans as a result of the negotiations: Hubbard’s release. We can recall Redcliffe’s previous trips and the idea of exchanging the release of hostages for the easing of sanctions. They are returning to a similar scheme once again.

At the same time, they’re discussing the so-called diesel deal. Putin claims that after certain decisions were made, prices supposedly dropped by six percent. But the Americans know how to count money and see what’s happening at their gas stations. Prices continue to rise, so such figures won’t convince them.

In reality, Witkoff brought to Russia the very same waste paper he’s been transporting for a very long time. They’re changing clauses in the documents and reverting to old proposals. It’s telling that they’re even revisiting the discussion of security guarantees for Ukraine, drawing an analogy to NATO’s Article 5.

Right now, Trump and Putin are primarily interested in the very fact that negotiations are taking place. So they can go out and say: “Look, we’re talking; peace will come soon.” The American president needs this by November 3 to present what appears to be a major diplomatic success to voters.

We have two politicians who are feeding off each other’s promises. Putin says he’s ready for peace, Trump repeats that peace is just around the corner, but there are no real changes.

Witkoff was in Oslo before his meeting with Putin. Why were European partners unable to convince the American side to reject these proposals?

On the contrary, I believe that everything in Oslo was organized very competently. Jonas Gar Støre and Alexander Stubb were there. Both have vast diplomatic experience; both previously served as foreign ministers of their respective countries. They understand perfectly well how to speak in such situations.

I even expected a serious dispute to break out there. But nothing of the sort happened. They calmly held a press conference, expressed their support for Europe, the United States, and Ukraine, and refused to be drawn into an unnecessary conflict.

And the most important point had already been made in European capitals: Europe does not want to return to dependence on Russian oil and gas. Consequently, the question arises: who needs Lukoil’s or Nord Stream’s assets if European countries have no intention of returning to the previous model of cooperation?

I believe that Trump’s inner circle was counting on the possibility of acquiring certain Russian assets and building a major business around them. But without the European market, their appeal is entirely different.

Moreover, Europe has no intention of transferring approximately 250 billion in frozen Russian funds to implement such agreements. Friedrich Merz made it clear that Europeans will decide for themselves how to dispose of this money.

That is why Witkoff arrived to meet with Putin in a rather awkward position. The Europeans listened to him politely but did not, in fact, support the key economic plans that Washington had been counting on.

I do not expect this visit to yield any results related to actual peace. The rest of the talks, in my opinion, will primarily concern economic issues and how to present the discussions with the Kremlin as a success for Trump.

Until November 3, such statements may become increasingly frequent. They will try to show Americans that the president has almost reached an agreement with Russia and that they should therefore support him and the Republicans.

Not Yalta, but a New Munich

Putin has once again proposed holding a meeting with Trump and Xi Jinping in China. The Chinese premier also arrived in St. Petersburg the day before. Could the Kremlin be preparing a new Yalta, where the major powers will negotiate Ukraine’s future without Ukraine itself?

First, let’s separate political and economic issues. The Chinese premier is primarily concerned with the economic aspects of government: the economy, statistics, and major projects. His purview may include issues related to gas pipelines and preparations for international economic meetings.

Major foreign policy matters fall under the responsibility of Xi Jinping and Wang Yi. Therefore, the mere fact that the Chinese premier is arriving in St. Petersburg does not in itself mean that an agreement on the division of the world is being prepared there.

But now, regarding Yalta. As preparations for Munich are underway – and it’s being called “Yalta” – this is where the main problem arises.

I’m told that Putin wants to organize a new Yalta Conference. And I ask: what major threat have these three defeated that now justifies them gathering to establish a postwar order? Where is that shared victory, after which they intend to determine the fate of other nations?

In this story, Trump reminds me of Neville Chamberlain. He really wants to fly home and say, “I’ve brought you peace.” But then it may turn out that instead of peace, he’s brought a new war.

After all, the 1938 Munich Agreement did not ensure lasting security for Europe. Concessions to the aggressor only encouraged Nazi Germany’s further expansion.

I believe that Putin has envisioned precisely this scenario. Not simply an agreement regarding specific Ukrainian territories, but an attempt to dismember Ukraine, thereby creating the conditions for a much broader conflict.

We must remember that the partition of Czechoslovakia was not limited to the decisions of the main participants in the Munich Agreement. At that time, Poland and Hungary also put forward their own territorial claims. Nor do I forget the appearance of Hungarian troops near the Ukrainian border in 2022.

That is why I refer to the possibility of such agreements not as a “new Yalta,” but as a “new Munich.” This could be the trigger for a major war.

This is not Yalta. This is Munich. This is a guaranteed, rubber-stamped ticket to a world war. And I am convinced that Putin fully understands the danger of such a scenario.

But I don’t think Xi Jinping will want to play this game by Russia’s rules. China needs an economically strong Europe. The European market buys Chinese goods and raw materials worth hundreds of billions of euros – approximately 600 billion. Why would Beijing want to destroy one of its most important trading partners?

At the same time, the meeting itself may take place. It’s important to distinguish between discussions about holding it before November 3 and actual contacts after that date – specifically around November 17–18, when APEC events are expected.

But it is unlikely that any new “Munich Agreement” will be concluded on the sidelines of the economic forum. Preliminary talks, preparatory contacts, and some exchange of political signals may take place there.

Moreover, I expect resistance even within the U.S. administration. People like Marco Rubio or Scott Bessent are unlikely to be interested in a meeting that could permanently undermine the U.S.’s international standing.

For Trump, the consequences could be extremely serious. I do not rule out that such agreements could serve as grounds not only for political criticism but also for the initiation of impeachment proceedings.

The Threat to the U.S.

If the U.S., Russia, and China begin negotiating the partition of Ukraine, it will look like America is renouncing its own guarantees and international leadership. How dangerous could the consequences be for Washington itself?

Absolutely correct. Imagine the principle itself: three nuclear powers have decided to sit down and divide non-nuclear Ukraine. These are countries that previously assumed international obligations to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

And all of this is happening at a time when Russia is supported by Iran and North Korea. In other words, other states that pose serious threats to international security are also involved in attempts to pressure Ukraine.

I want Washington to understand the scale of the potential consequences. This is not just a matter of Donald Trump’s personal political future. It could spell the end of trust in the United States as a global leader.

If America agrees to the dismemberment of a state whose sovereignty it previously supported, who will trust its guarantees after that? What will the U.S.’s allies in Europe or Asia say then?

This is a blow to the entire system of American international influence. Moreover, the consequences may linger even after Trump’s presidency ends, regardless of who moves into the White House.

That’s why I’m more skeptical about the very idea of a major summit. I don’t see any grounds for these three leaders to genuinely claim they can establish a new world order. They haven’t achieved anything together that would now allow them to decide the future of other nations.

Moreover, I’m not sure the idea of a trilateral meeting even originated with Putin.

Recall Trump’s first term and his meeting with Putin in Helsinki. At that time, the Russian president proposed negotiating one-on-one, effectively dividing up spheres of influence. And Trump, as far as I understand, raised the issue of a broader format involving China, whose role was already growing at that time.

Putin did not accept this idea at the time. But I suspect that during their phone call in September, Trump may have brought it up again.

His inner circle constantly talks about China, arguing that the China issue should be one of the top priorities of U.S. foreign policy. And Trump, in my opinion, avoids serious talks with Beijing on an equal footing.

So it’s entirely possible that Trump was the one who brought up the idea of a trilateral meeting again, and that it was later presented as Putin’s proposal.

I don’t believe this is necessarily a Russian initiative. It seems to me that the American president could have been its true originator.

Business Behind the Veil of Peace

Trump claimed that Russia could have allegedly captured Kyiv in a matter of hours, but was prevented from doing so by heavy rain and mistakes by its generals. At the same time, the U.S. is easing some restrictions on Russian oil, discussing a diesel deal, while Ukraine faces delays in receiving weapons and problems with satellite communications. Why is Trump acting more and more openly in the Kremlin’s interests?

Because he really wants to get his hands on some assets. I’m convinced that Putin has sensed this.

Trump has failed to carry out his plans regarding Lukoil’s assets and the Nord Stream pipeline. But Russia is a big country; there are other assets there that can be monetized. And, in my opinion, it is precisely the opportunity to gain economic benefits that largely determines Trump’s current interest in the negotiations.

As for his statements about Kyiv, I’m convinced that he himself understands perfectly well how far they are from reality.

He claims that Russian tanks got stuck because of the rain, that the generals took a wrong turn and therefore couldn’t reach Kyiv quickly. But that’s ridiculous.

Trump received military training and should understand how the command and control of large military formations works. He must be able to distinguish between the tasks carried out by a general and those carried out by a tank unit commander.

Likewise, he must understand that the Russian army could not have simply arrived in Kyiv in a matter of hours and captured it. And not just because of the weather or road conditions. Russia has not achieved its main objectives even after years of war.

Why, then, say such things? To shift the blame for the U.S.’s domestic economic problems.

Look at how this is explained to Americans. Gas prices are rising – it’s Ukraine’s fault because it’s striking Russian oil refineries. There’s inflation – it’s Biden’s fault for sending money and weapons to Ukraine. Problems arise due to customs and tariff policies – once again, they find an external culprit.

Trump is trying to portray himself as someone who has nothing to do with these difficulties. Meanwhile, he continues to seek economic benefits from agreements with Moscow.

I believe that his latest statements and Witkoff’s trip are part of the same process. Talk of peace is being used as a smokescreen behind which business negotiations are taking place.

At the same time, they’re trying to show the American public at least some kind of result. That’s precisely why they made Hubbard’s release such a big deal.

According to the information I have, about twenty U.S. citizens remain in Russian prisons. The idea of releasing Americans in exchange for easing sanctions allows for achieving specific humanitarian results, which can then be presented as major achievements of the administration.

This concept was linked to Cowell. The plan was to showcase the return of Americans home as the election approached, accompany it with economic agreements, and thereby boost support for Trump and the Republicans.

But this entire strategy began to unravel due to Trump’s own stance on Ukraine. He made numerous concessions to Russia, faced a wave of criticism in the U.S., and the Kremlin failed to deliver the outcome he had hoped for.

According to the polls I’ve seen, Trump’s approval rating has dropped below 30%, and some surveys already show it at around 27%. And if he was counting on transferring his personal popularity to Republican Party candidates, that could turn out to be a major strategic mistake.

After all, the U.S. president’s problems are beginning to affect the prospects of his entire party. And the election is just around the corner.

Impeachment and the Crisis in the U.S.

Democrats and some Republicans are raising questions about an investigation into Trump’s possible ties to Russia, diesel deals, and the easing of sanctions. What might happen after the election if the Democrats gain a majority in Congress?

I foresee very serious consequences – ranging from the creation of investigative committees and congressional inquiries to the launch of impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.

In my opinion, the Democrats have a good chance of gaining control of the House of Representatives. I also wouldn’t rule out changes in the Senate. But the main question isn’t even how many seats each party will win, but how Trump himself will react to the new political situation.

I don’t think he’ll simply accept a sharp decline in his influence. He’ll cling to power and use every tool at his disposal.

We are already seeing a radicalization among some MAGA supporters. I do not rule out the possibility that serious internal conflicts could arise after the election, potentially escalating to physical confrontations between different political groups.

In such a scenario, the National Guard may be called in to restore order. Attempts to invoke emergency powers are also possible. Everything will depend on how far the confrontation escalates.

Of course, I assume that there are still people within the Republican Party who will try to keep the situation under control. American institutions have considerable resilience, and not all Republicans are willing to support every action Trump takes.

But if the political struggle intensifies, the administration will be forced to devote its energy first and foremost to its own survival. Then foreign policy issues, particularly support for Ukraine, may take a back seat.

Investigations into the Russian deals will be of particular importance. Congress may begin to thoroughly examine the conditions under which sanctions were eased, who stood to gain from the diesel fuel deals, and what economic interests lay behind the White House’s decisions.

In my opinion, Trump still does not realize how dangerous his policy toward Ukraine has become for him. Putin is already feeling the consequences of the war for his own political future, while the American president continues to move in the same direction.

I consider his statements regarding Zelenskyy and Ukraine to be blatantly false. He is trying to shift the blame for his own economic and political problems onto others, but this does not address the reasons for the decline in trust in him.

Trump, in his attempts to strike a deal with Putin, is sinking deeper and deeper into a political crisis. And the problem is that he is dragging the United States down with him.

At the same time, Europe’s stance provides Ukraine with crucial support. European partners have already stated their readiness to support Ukraine even if U.S. aid were to cease.

They understand that the war affects the security of the entire continent. And if Trump withdraws support for Ukraine, Europe will have to shoulder even more responsibility.

That is why I do not believe that Putin and Trump will be able to easily carry out their plans. Europe has already demonstrated its willingness to defend its own interests, and the U.S. president’s options could change significantly after the election.

I deeply regret that Trump, by dragging himself into the abyss, is dragging the United States down with him. The consequences of his decisions could turn out to be far more far-reaching than simply a failed attempt to reach an agreement with Putin.

Bezsmertny on Witkoff’s negotiations with Putin: watch the video