Repetition of the Munich Agreement or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: How to Perceive the Public Dialogue between Trump and Putin?

In the evening of February 12, the negotiation process between the United States and Russia to “resolve” the war in Ukraine, which, judging by numerous statements by the world media and evasive quotes from representatives of both sides, began several weeks or even months ago, finally became official at the highest level.

Donald Trump and the Kremlin administration simultaneously released statements that a “long and thorough” conversation between the two heads of state had taken place, lasting almost an hour and a half. A few minutes after the conversation with the Kremlin dictator, Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and spoke with him for about an hour. So, after numerous underhanded curtsies, the ice of the “deal” we recently wrote about has finally broken! A few hours later, Trump announced that he was planning to meet with Putin in Saudi Arabia, and then added that he would like to invite him to the United States and then travel to Russia himself.

The news stunned Ukrainian society and provoked a full range of emotions, from total “betrayal” and “shame” to cautious optimism. Some commentators are trying to disbelieve what is happening and hold the position that both Trump and Putin are characterized by saying one thing and doing something else. Let's try to analyze this really important diplomatic move. Spoiler alert: most likely, we have nothing good to look forward to.

GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESULTS OF TRUMP AND PUTIN'S CONVERSATION

To begin with, the fact that the phone call took place plays a significant role, as it fully returns the head of the aggressor country to the circle of “handshaking” world leaders. And now all other Western heads of state need to somehow digest this and, most likely, change their approach to communicating with Putin. This applies equally to Ukraine. So, Trump has set a new trend: real politics, just business, as they say, and nothing else.

Second, let's pay attention to the very complimentary tone of both sides in the final assessment of the conversation. First, this can clearly indicate that both presidents were really satisfied with this dialog and found some common ground. It can also be assumed that the conversation was not confrontational and that no one hung up on them in anger. After all, if the talks had failed, they could have simply not been reported, or information about the unsuccessful contact could have surfaced much later, as, for example, a few days ago, it became known about a previous conversation between Trump and Putin that took place some time ago.

Thirdly, judging by the statements that hastily appeared in the European media, the public dialogue between Trump and Putin was “unexpected” for European leaders, who see it as nothing more than a “sale of Ukraine.” We can interpret it even more broadly - it is the sale of Europe.

That is, despite earlier reports that representatives of Trump's diplomatic team had allegedly paused for consultations with the Europeans, this did not happen for some reason, and he preferred direct dialogue with the aggressor “over the head” of his NATO allies. This can certainly be assessed as a very hasty and dangerous step that poses a huge challenge to the entire European security. However, we will return to this point in more detail later.

No less disturbing is Trump's very evasive and ambiguous answer to a journalist's question, which followed his conversation with Putin, about whether he considers Ukraine an equal member of the negotiations.

“That's an interesting question. I think they will have to make peace,” the American leader said.

Trump also made several other key statements at this press conference.
The first was that he “agrees” that Ukraine “should give up its membership in NATO.”

“I'm fine with that,” the American president said, thus basically agreeing to fulfill one of Putin's main demands.

The second is that he admitted that “a ceasefire in Ukraine is possible in the not too distant future,” and that “Ukraine will return part of its territory.” This creates a kind of framework for the future “bargaining” of our occupied lands, after which a ceasefire may come, which has been mentioned many times.

It should be noted that a little earlier, on the morning of February 12, Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that “Russia does not trade territories.” However, traditionally, his statements can be taken to mean exactly the opposite.
Next, we will move on to a separate analysis of the White House and Kremlin's assessments of the conversation between Trump and Putin.

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

As a result of the communication between the leaders of the countries, each side traditionally issues a communiqué in which it indicates the most important points for itself. What was important to Trump?

He said that he discussed with Putin “the strengths of our countries and the great benefits we will receive from working together.” This can be interpreted, for example, as an opportunity to resume cooperation between the United States and Russia on a wide range of issues, from the extension of START III and the resumption of other recently suspended treaties to limit the deployment of nuclear arsenals, to cooperation with Moscow in resolving the United States' relations with Iran and North Korea, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and other friends of Putin.
Also, the “great benefit of working together” can be understood as a possible partial lifting of sanctions against Russia in the foreseeable future.

In addition, as part of the conversation, Trump and Putin agreed that they “want to stop millions of deaths,” and to this end, the American president decided to immediately form a team to negotiate with the Russians, which will include Secretary of State Mark Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and other senior government officials.

To sweeten the deal with Putin, Trump again mentioned “the great history of our nations,” specifically, the joint participation in the Anti-Hitler Coalition. In short, “the grandfathers fought,” as usual.

WHAT THE KREMLIN SAID

Within the framework of the dialogue, Putin “called for the elimination of the root causes of the conflict.” This obsession of the dictator, to be honest, can be interpreted in any way. But we are used to it being deciphered as a necessary refusal of Ukraine to join NATO, as well as the notorious “denazification” and “demilitarization” of our country. It is significant that Washington decided not to broadcast this nonsense.

Putin's people also confirmed that their host “agreed that it is necessary to completely stop the conflict” and that negotiations should begin “immediately.”
And, of course, “the topic of the joint struggle on the fields of World War II was raised,” which is a ritual that could not have been done without.

TRUMP'S COMMUNICATION WITH ZELENSKYY - KYIV'S ASSESSMENT

It is significant that Trump's call to Kyiv took place while US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was visiting Bankova Street to discuss a draft partnership agreement, a document that provides for the development and transfer of our rare earth metals to the Americans.

Trump and Zelenskyy commented on their phone calls after it became known that the White House had spoken with Putin. Therefore, it is not entirely clear whether Ukraine's repeatedly declared requirement that no negotiations with the aggressor should be held without our country's knowledge was met. Perhaps Bessent, who arrived in Kyiv, formally informed Zelenskyy about them at the last moment.
However, our president did not express any criticism in this regard, noting that Trump had informed him of the details of communication with the Russian president.

“Ukraine wants peace more than anyone else. We are defining our joint steps with America to stop Russian aggression and guarantee a reliable, lasting peace. As President Trump said, let's get it done,” Zelensky summarized.
Later, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Yermak, confirmed that Ukraine, in sync with the United States and Russia, had begun forming a team to start peace talks.

WHAT DOES TRUMP SAY ABOUT THIS?

“I have just spoken with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The conversation went very well. He, like President Putin, wants PEACE,” the American leader said.

The most important part of the communiqué is that Trump confirmed the participation of a delegation led by Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Rubio in the upcoming Munich Security Conference, which will begin negotiations with Ukraine on ways to end the war.

IMPORTANT DETAILS AND CONCLUSIONS
For a more comprehensive understanding of the situation, it is also necessary to pay attention to the statements of the new US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, which he also made on February 12 during a speech at a meeting of the contact group on Ukraine's defense in Ramstein.

Hegseth reiterated that there will be no American peacekeepers in Ukraine, and completely shifted the responsibility for forming and sending a peacekeeping contingent in any format to European countries. Even more importantly, he said, these hypothetical troops would not be considered NATO representatives and, if attacked by Russians, would not be subject to the Alliance's notorious Article Five.
However, the head of the Pentagon believes that the United States should provide our country with some security guarantees in order to strengthen Ukraine and prevent a repeat Russian invasion. What kind of guarantees? Economic aid, continued military supplies? This is still unknown.

At the same time, as already mentioned, the US Treasury Secretary arrived in Kyiv to negotiate about our rare earth resources. And, judging by Trump's statements, he wants to get our minerals worth $300 billion, primarily as compensation for the American funds already spent to help Ukraine. That is, it is also unclear whether we will receive any symbolic “umbrella” from the United States through the transfer of rare earth metals in the future.

Taken together, all of this looks, simply put, like a big “betrayal,” and if we look at it in more detail, it seems that the Trump administration wants to get rid of the “Ukrainian problem” as soon as possible and leave our country to its own devices, not forgetting to benefit from the previous concerns that America has caused.

“One day, Ukraine may become part of Russia. Or it may not,” Trump's statement a day earlier best describes his view of the situation. At the end, he added: “But as long as we can get this 300 billion, we will get it.”

Reflecting on Hughes's statements about a potential peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine, it takes a lot of imagination to imagine that any European country, even one with the warmest feelings toward Ukraine, would be willing to send troops here without having the U.S. guarantee their safety. Let's imagine a situation where the Russians organize a provocation and fire artillery at a checkpoint where soldiers from Spain or, for example, the Netherlands are stationed. Who will respond to this and how? After all, NATO guarantees do not apply to them, and the Alliance, along with the UN, will only express deep concern. Will Spain and the Netherlands take a heroic step and personally declare war on Russia in response? This is not even a ridiculous hypothesis from the realm of non-scientific fiction. Let's say that the European nuclear powers, the United Kingdom and France, can take the lead on the issue of guarantees. However, their determination to come into direct contact with “dear friend Vladimir” also leaves serious doubts.

But let's assume that European leaders somehow consolidate and realize that there is no other alternative but to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine. In this case, the allies left behind by the United States in the face of this global challenge will be forced to act literally “off the wheels.” And given the extremely small size of European armies and their well-known problems with the production and deployment of weapons, it will be very, very difficult to assemble such a contingent, and it will take a lot of time, which neither we nor they have.

Thus, under the current circumstances, Ukraine, apparently, not for the first time in our history, will have to face an existential problem not only for its own statehood but for the whole of Europe. The nice phone conversations between Trump and Putin do not reduce this threat, but only increase it. Meanwhile, it seems that the flywheel of the “deal” is already in full swing, and Ukraine may be the last to be asked where this process will lead us.

Based on all of the above, it seems that we are now facing two amazing alternatives. To be a country sacrificed to the aggressor, like Czechoslovakia in 1938 (after all, Hitler was initially satisfied with only a part of this country, and returned for the rest a year later). Or it could become part of the “sphere of influence” between the two “great powers” that are once again redivision of Europe, as it was enshrined in the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939.

It is strange for me to think that I wrote almost exactly the same thing exactly three years ago, shortly before the full-scale Russian invasion. Back then, Ukrainians were able to withstand the force of the “second army of the world” and then heroically held out for not three days, not three weeks, but three years! Will we be able to withstand the blow of the “treaty”?

Author - Nickolay Yakovenko