Illustrative Image
Grigory Karasin, Russia’s representative at the talks with the United States in Riyadh, told journalists that “all” issues were discussed with his American colleagues. This answer may seem too vague, but in fact the Russian negotiator was not lying. Moscow and Washington are trying to find a comprehensive compromise. And Ukraine is in the center of attention. Why did negotiations between the two great powers become possible at all? With the arrival of Donald Trump in the Oval Office, the ideological obstacles that previously prevented dialogue with the Kremlin have disappeared. The State Department recognized that three years without talks with the Russians was proof of the “illogic” of Joseph Biden’s policy.
Both the White House and the Kremlin are dominated by realpolitik. Attempts to remake the opponent in one’s own image have never led to anything good. Ideological indoctrination hinders any peace process. And the removal of ideological blinkers helps to truly pave the way for the resolution of a dangerous crisis. In this kind of negotiation, both sides try to put their national interests on the table and reconcile them.
Illustrative Image
Let’s try to outline the possible arguments of each of the negotiators. We can start with the United States of America. In February 2025, Donald Trump announced that his country had spent 350 billion dollars to support Ukraine. The left-liberal media and NGOs immediately began to “refute” the words of the American leader, saying that the United States had spent significantly less. At the same time, they refer to the officially approved tranches. However, it seems that Trump has a much broader vision of the situation. No one has publicly reported on the spending of the Pentagon, the CIA and other structures on closed items. Congress did not authorize secret, expensive operations against Russia. So the complaints of George Soros’ followers about the president’s “misinformation” are groundless and ridiculous. America has allocated colossal resources to an absolutely ruinous endeavor.
Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, estimates that US losses from anti-Russian sanctions exceed $300 billion. In total, according to the most minimal estimates, the Americans have lost 600 billion dollars. But there are also longer-term consequences. For example, the loss of confidence in the dollar in the world. From a means of international payment, it has become a geopolitical weapon. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has recognized this.
Initially, the White House viewed military assistance to Ukraine and sanctions as an investment in the future. The goal was to strategically defeat Russia on the battlefield and halt its economic development. By 2024, it was clear that neither goal would be achieved. Donald Trump’s administration is forced to try to at least offset the costs. This is also important for the president’s domestic position. The triumphant return of the Republican to the Oval Office should be very successful. To take revenge for 2020 and to prove to Americans that he is right. Finally, to ensure continuity of power in 2028. Compensation can be achieved by transferring most of Ukraine’s resources, large strategic enterprises, nuclear power plants and port infrastructure to American ownership.
Illustrative Image
However, this option is not entirely acceptable to Russia. First, because Ukraine is not perceived in the Kremlin as an object of colonial conquest. Ukrainians are regarded in the Kremlin as a rebellious section of their own people. Drawing parallels with the United States, one could say that for Russia, Ukrainians are something like the Southerners during the Civil War of 1861-1865. Moscow wants to achieve its goals and secure an acceptable future for a loyal, not hostile, Ukraine. At the same time, American national interests are taken into account. Any compromise cannot exclude the economic interests of the United States in the Ukrainian territories. Russia itself is ready to provide Washington with favorable conditions for investments, especially in the field of mining.
If the U.S. has spent a colossal amount of money in Ukraine, Russia has paid not only with huge military expenditures. Russia has sacrificed a large number of human lives. The most terrible and bloody price has been paid. Not a single billion dollars can compare with it. As the Russian proverb says, “blood is not water”. Moscow cannot end the war without meeting its basic demands, which are not unacceptable to the USA. The main thing is the international recognition of the incorporation of Crimea, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions into Russia. As well as ensuring the political status of left-bank Ukraine, Nikolayev and Odessa oblasts acceptable to the Kremlin.
Russia is not interested in the right bank of Ukraine (with the exception of Odessa and Nikolayev oblasts). Moscow is ready to give these areas to the interests of the United States or the European Union. However, the Chernigov, Sumy, Poltava, Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk, Nikolayev and Odessa regions should receive a confederal status within the Ukrainian state. Russian and American influence in these regions should be fairly distributed. This may seem cynical to some, but this is how big politics is done. And it’s how diplomacy used to be done. Agreements to divide spheres of influence after World War II kept Europe at peace for nearly eighty years.
Click to see full-size image
The British Public Record Office holds a famous historical document, the Percentage Agreement. On October 9, 1944, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin met in Moscow to discuss the postwar organization of the Old World. The two prominent leaders quickly sketched out on a piece of paper the extent of Soviet and Western influence in the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe. Romania – 90/10, Greece – 10/90, Yugoslavia – 50/50, Hungary – 50/50, Bulgaria – 75/25.
Churchill recalled: “I pushed this across to Stalin, who had by then heard the translation. There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us. It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down. After this there was a long silence. The pencilled paper lay in the centre of the table. At length I said, ‘Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues so fateful to millions of people, in such an offhand manner? Let us burn the paper’. ‘No, you keep it’, said Stalin”.
There was, of course, no mention of the division of spheres of influence in the final documents of the Moscow Conference. But the fact of the division was there. Thanks to the pragmatism of the Western and Soviet elites, the framework of the Potsdam-Yalta system of international relations was built. And this construction made it possible to preserve pan-European peace, prevent the clash of nuclear powers, and give the European continent a period of unprecedented socio-economic prosperity. Do Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have enough common sense and pragmatism? It seems so. The two leaders have very similar thought processes. And both leaders have a clear understanding of their responsibilities to their successors.
