Ben Morgan: A warning for the Trump administration, failed peace talks are a win for Putin

US hosted peace negotiations continue, and Putin appears to be setting the agenda. A situation that raised the ire of senior Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell who on 27 March delivered a powerful rebuke to the Whitehouse.

McConnell, a politician known for speaking carefully, chastised the administration for chasing an ‘illusory peace” with Russia, and stated“When American officials court the favor of an adversary at the expense of allies, when they mock our friends to impress an enemy, they reveal their embarrassing naivete.” His words reflecting recent comments by US Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff a New York property developer, who recently replaced retired General Keith Kellog as America’s chief negotiator for the Ukraine War.

Unlike Kellogg, Witkoff seems charmed by Putin, saying last week “I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy.” During his meeting with him, Putin was “gracious,” “straight up” and “super smart” Witkoff said. Descriptions of the Russian leader unlikely to be shared by many experienced diplomats, or tough old Republicans like McConnell who remember the pain of Cold War confrontation.

Witkoff also discussed a portrait of Trump that Putin gifted the US President, who he reported is touched by the gift. The Kremlin’s charm offensive has paid off, Witkoff telling Fox News that “I take him [Putin] at his word” and “I just don’t see that he wants to take all of Europe.” The BBC reporting that, “Witkoff made several assertions that are either not true or disputed.”

Like Trump, Witkoff appears to be forming his opinions based on Russian information, rather than, using intelligence available to him through the US government.

Last week’s key result of negotiations was that a ceasefire in the Black Sea is being discussed. However, like the previous ‘partial ceasefire’ it was announced before any details were confirmed. And, like the previous ‘partial cease fire’ it is unlikely to be enacted, Putin saying he will not sign it until sanctions are relaxed.

The process seems amateurish and McConnell is obviously deeply concerned that “Unless we [the US] change course, the outcome we’re headed for today is the one we can least afford: a headline that reads ‘Russia wins, America loses.”

Putin is clearly winning at this point; his charm offensive and disinformation campaign are finding fertile ground in the Whitehouse, influencing negotiations. Meanwhile, the US seeks to renegotiate a mineral deal with Ukraine. The terms seem extortionate as Ukraine would be required to contribute 50% of all future extraction of state-owned resources, including from oil, gas, and logistics infrastructure. The money raised being used to repay previous US aid to Ukraine, and the US does not even provide a security guarantee. It is a deal that Ukraine is unlikely to agree to.

This type of diplomacy, is very sad because its shows this administration no longer sees America as the ‘arsenal of democracy’ or the ‘leader of the free world.’ In 1961, the world listened when President Kennedy said “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” A speech given as the US invested in and was rebuilding Europe and Japan after World War Two. America bearing a burden to create new democratic nations, and global institutions like the UN.

Now it appears that the effective, cosmopolitan foreign policy of the past has been replaced by simplistic, economic analysis of costs and benefits. A noteworthy point about the ‘Signalgate’ discussion was reading National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz discuss the President’s instructions to “determine how to compile the cost associated [with re-opening shipping lanes, which assumes the U.S. would achieve that] and levy them on the Europeans.” Or Homeland Security Advisor, Stephen Miller discussing the need to “make clear to Egypt and Europe what we [the US] expect in return” and that “if the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

A mercenary approach to international affairs that is sure to alienate the group of nations that are current US partners and allies. An approach that undermines the concept of ‘moral right,’ and replaces foreign policy with transactions based on nothing more than America getting what it wants.

Putin ‘gets it,’ and in a speech on 28 March he acknowledged the US interest in Greenland, making sure the world knows that Russia will not intervene. Recent Kremlin statements also discuss the economic benefits of the US and Russia working together in the Arctic. Carefully contrived communications designed to empower the Trump Whitehouse, and to elevate Russia into a position of authorising US foreign policy in the Arctic. No wonder McConnell is upset.

In recent weeks the Trump administration’s actions and statements indicate that it prioritises developing a relationship with Russia over supporting Ukraine. Unless there is a direct economic advantage for the US. Hence, trying to impose mineral deals on Ukraine in exchange for continued support. But will the US achieve a peace deal, a Ukrainian mineral deal and build a new relationship with Russia?

I do not think so, and a common recent theme of these columns is that ‘peace deals are made in the real world.’ Trump’s plans include several issues that he cannot control, that provide Ukraine with options and incentivise Russia to keep fighting.

Europe is not buying Russian disinformation, and understands the threat

The Trump Whitehouse may be keen to sacrifice Ukraine, and although Witkoff has already dismissed UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer’s proposed peace support force as “a posture and a pose,” Europe is genuinely concerned about Russian aggression. Any strategist will confirm that from a European perspective, it is more economical to support Ukraine to defend itself than to let Putin conquer Ukraine.

Further, the Trump administration’s diplomatic activity is rapidly alienating Europe’s leaders. For example, the US is currently threatening to annex Canada and Greenland, European leaders were publicly berated by both the US Vice President and Secretary of Defence, and ‘Signalgates’ leaked messages indicate the Cabinet’s perception of Europe.

Therefore, Europe has both logical and emotional reasons to back Ukraine and is mobilising a ‘coalition of the willing’ to support it. Currently, 31 countries are committed and their combined military and economic power dwarfs Russia. After their meeting in Paris on 27 March the collation agreed to share more intelligence, provide technology and access to European satellites, and to provide more artillery ammunition.

Battlefield results will influence negotiations

On 29 March, Associated Press reported that Ukrainian sources predict a large Russian offensive soon in the Sumy, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhia oblasts.

However, whether this is a real threat remains to be seen because recent observations indicate that Russia’s combat power is waning. For example, since April last year Russia has pursued an offensive in Donetsk. Switching its key vector of attack from Chasiv Yar, to Pokrovsk, then trying to outflank Pokrovsk from the south before attacking near Chasiv Yar again.

Three weeks ago, activity in Donetsk slowed down while Russia attacked Ukraine’s Kursk Salient, an operation that is ongoing. Contrary to statements by Putin, Trump and Witkoff, Russia has not surrounded and massacred Ukrainian forces there but instead is still trying to close the salient. Meanwhile, trying to contain Ukraine’s attack across the Belgorod border.

During this period near the towns of Pokrovsk in Donetsk, and Kupiansk in Luhansk a series of small Ukrainian counter attacks have recaptured lost ground. See the map below. Activity that indicates Russia is having difficultly maintaining its operational tempo.

The Institute for the Study of War stated on 29 March that “It is unlikely that the Russian military is capable of conducting three significant offensive efforts against major Ukrainian cities even after conducting such redeployments, as Russia has suffered significant armored vehicle and personnel losses over the last three years of fighting and has not demonstrated the ability to conduct complex operations involving multiple simultaneous axes of advance since Winter 2022.”

Essentially, Russia and Ukraine remain heavily engaged, and regardless of ceasefire negotiations will maintain operations until they see advantage in stopping. My speculation is that Russia is culminating and has limited combat power available for operations. For instance, on 29 March the Institute for the Study of War also pointed out that Russia has not resolved its recruitment issues, and that “ISW has not observed open-source reports of significant Russian redeployments to the Sumy, Kharkiv, or Zaporizhia directions.”

My assessment is that both Russia and Ukraine benefit from the threat of a Russian offensive. Russia because it supports their disinformation narrative of inevitable Russian victory, and Ukraine because the threat encourages supporters to continue contributing. But whether Russia has the capacity to attack is debatable. Regardless, the situation on the frontline contributes to the negotiations.

If Russia does mount a successful offensive, it is very unlikely to negotiate. Likewise, Ukraine is now unlikely to trust the US to protect its interests so is likely to keep fighting until it faces the prospect of a catastrophic defeat, or defeats Russia.

Summary

US diplomacy (or the lack of diplomacy) incentivises both parties to continue fighting. Putin’s charm offensive against Trump and Witkoff, appears to be working which incentivises him to keep fighting because by continuing to fight, even if his soldiers are dying in droves, and riding to battle in civilian cars he can reinforce a disinformation campaign that claims Russian victory is inevitable.

Ukraine’s incentives to keep fighting are that it is unlikely to trust the US to protect its interests. Meanwhile, European support for Ukraine is increasing because these nation’s confidence in American foreign policy is undermined.

Trump’s administration is creating a situation in which the chances of a cease fire, or a lasting peace are rapidly disappearing. And, if lasting peace is not achieved Russia wins, a point that Senator McConnell, a powerful voice in the Republican party is making. This week’s question is whether the Trump administration will heed the warning?