Follow us on social

google cta
Trump and Putin on phone

US-Russia talks: The rubber finally hits the road

A partial ceasefire on energy and infrastructure attacks is a preliminary way to cut the Gordian knot

Europe
google cta
google cta

If the diplomatic overtures of the past several months were seen by some as opaque, then today’s phone call between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot be taken as anything but proof positive that the rubber has hit the road on serious, substantive U.S.-Russia negotiations over a Ukraine peace deal.

The White House has been pushing for an all-encompassing ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine as the first step on the long road to a durable settlement. There is an obvious military rationale for doing so: the major battlefield indicators favor Russia, which is slowly overpowering Ukraine in a war of attrition and has just effectively ended the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ (AFU) high-stakes incursion into the Kursk region.

An immediate cessation of hostilities would thus prevent Ukraine’s bargaining position from further deteriorating as talks unfold. But, and precisely for this reason, Putin seeks to shape the terms of a ceasefire in Russia’s favor with stipulations that the agreement must include "the complete cessation of foreign military assistance and provision of intelligence information to Kyiv.”

The partial ceasefire on energy and infrastructure attacks, apparently agreed to by both the Russian and American sides, is a preliminary way to cut the Gordian knot as talks over a full ceasefire proceed in coming days and weeks. The energy-infrastructure truce represents substantial progress, negotiated under what is militarily a difficult situation for Ukraine, in slowly shifting from war onto a de-escalatory trajectory.

Not unimportantly, it is also a source of real succor for Ukraine’s civilian population over three years into what has been the most destructive war on the European continent since 1945.

It should not be lost on anyone that this undeniably positive momentum has been made possible by the White House’s ability — as recommend in a brief authored by me and my colleagues George Beebe and Anatol Lieven — to avoid the trap of treating this as a narrow deconfliction problem and instead demonstrating a willingness to engage Russia in a broader bilateral diplomatic track.

The Trump-Putin discussion extended far beyond Ukraine, touching on a wide spectrum of issues including cooperation in the Middle East, opportunities for economic normalization, nuclear arms control, and even a U.S.-Russia hockey series. This strategy of extending the negotiating table is not only a critical source of confidence-building to ensure compliance with any potential peace deal but gives Washington the leverage needed to mellow some of Russia’s maximalist conditions for ending the war.

Where do we go from here? Much will depend on the coming diplomatic tit-for-tat, but two things can be ascertained at the outset. It is of course crucial to maintain Ukrainian and European buy-in over the course of this process, itself no small task which will require sustained coordination with all the relevant stakeholders.

Secondly, whilst a full ceasefire remains a worthy short-term objective, the overall priority should be to engage Russia in frank, pragmatic dialogue on what the outlines of a final peace settlement can look like. Indeed, Moscow is unlikely to accept the former without a workable roadmap to the latter.


Top photo credit: Donald Trump (White House photo) and Vladimir Putin (Office of the Russian Federation President)
google cta
Europe
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.