Trump’s Phone Diplomacy: All Talk, No Substance

(WHAT REMAINED UNSAID IN THE CROSSTALK SHOW)

I have written and spoken multiple times about the war in Ukraine, but the need for this text stems from my personal feeling that I was not given enough space to prove my point during the CrossTalk show with Peter Lavelle, due to the short time and what I felt as unfair treatment. One may say that frustration results from my personal feelings (which does not necessarily mean they are justified or realistic): but it is usual to invite someone from a peripheral and small country as a junior partner or symbolic decoration for diversity in such shows. Don’t underestimate my experience… Nevertheless, Substack offers an opportunity to make up for what was left unsaid or said too briefly.

First, looking back at the period since the Trump–Putin phone conversation, it’s evident—though hardly surprising—that nothing of substance has changed. On the ground, Russia continues its steady advance, pursuing a strategy of attrition. Diplomatically, the landscape remains equally static. In fact, much of the discussion among experts, intellectuals, and the media has focused more on the surface-level spectacle of the phone call itself than on the deeper question: how can peace actually be achieved?

Dominant rhetoric is filled with many “creative” expressions like ‘phone diplomacy’ or even ‘social media diplomacy,’ which only shows how low the bar for “classical diplomacy” has fallen — a craft, a skill, even an art of the (im)possible. This is not surprising, given that for nearly three years since the war began, communication between Washington and Moscow, and even between European capitals and Moscow, has largely ceased. It became a matter of honor to resist talking to the hated opponent. Russophobia was unleashed at full force. To make things worse, this rhetoric has been employed (and still is) by leaders and their diplomats through public bickering, threats, insults, and even announcements of plans for military victory and disintegration of the Russian Federation (Kaja Kallas demonstrates a particular “talent” for reducing diplomacy to zero and turning it into a military — albeit empty — tool). Europe (where it is hard to distinguish where NATO ends and the EU begins) has acted as if separated from Russia by an entire ocean (like the USA). The so-called EU peace project showed not only impotence and lack of intelligence, but also an absence of creativity and a will to actively engage in mediation as a “third party.” Venus wanted to become Mars (to paraphrase Victoria Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan, and his theses from 25 years ago). While Biden was in the White House, this position was supposed to mean a united front and deep alliance of the Euro-Atlantic world. Europe, militarily and peacefully impotent, relied on its militant ally. In short, they really thought a military victory in Ukraine was possible. But when things began to decline and Russia shifted its military tactic from a special military operation (limited conflict) to a full-scale military operation (prepared for a prolonged war to protect its existential interests), Donald Trump realized that every delay meant a step closer to military defeat. Vietnam seemed forgotten, but images from Afghanistan were still fresh. NATO, in this whole story, served as a cover for the USA (Europe was just the pawn, unaware that it was itself a victim drawn into self-destruction or even paying a high price to satisfy Washington — the destruction of Nord Stream was the best proof). Therefore, NATO’s defeat in the proxy war is in fact a defeat of the USA, something Trump and MAGA cannot allow themselves to admit. The idea of a “peace plan” and “diplomacy” (by phone or otherwise) with Moscow is just a way to hide the truth: NATO and the USA are losing in Ukraine.

No matter how mentally unstable he may seem, Trump showed enough awareness that something must be done. To be clear, a man shaking hands with the bloody hands of Netanyahu and al-Julani from Syria cannot be a peacemaker. That is first! Second, a leader of a state that is actively involved in the Ukraine war cannot be an objective, reasonable, credible and impartial mediator.

When the statement came from Moscow that the phone call was constructive and FRANK, I must admit I started laughing inwardly: if Putin for a moment had stepped out of his diplomatic shoes, sincerity would require him to say some things to his interlocutor in the White House. Here is how I imagined that (undiplomatic but sincere) conversation: “Dear Donald, your country, and you personally, are THE root cause of this war. I warned you in 2007, 2008, continued with the Minsk agreements, and did everything I could to convince you I was not bluffing and that I demanded the expansion of your military power in Ukraine to stop. But what did you do? You made the Ukrainian army a respectable force, you located strategically important military targets and equipment near the Russian border; over 14,000 people have died in part of the country already, and over these three years, every Ukrainian success (by drone, missile system, assassination, or other means) was thanks to your technical, technological, informational, and intelligence capacities. We have been fighting you for three years, not Ukraine. Ukrainians have been turned into cannon fodder, and while you shed tears over the bodies of the dead and talk about terrible bloodshed, you don’t even think about how it looks in Gaza (a genocide that you, along with the EU, again support). Dear Donald, I’m glad you want to normalize bilateral relations, to talk as befits great and responsible (nuclear) powers, but the USA cannot be the solution because it is at the root of the conflict. And according to an old Latin legal maxim, no one can be a judge in their own cause (nemo judex in causa sua). I know you don’t care much about international law, but in the spirit of sincerity, I must tell you this.”

The question in Lavelle’s show was: Did Trump actually accomplish anything as a result of his ‘phone diplomacy?’ The answer is affirmative, only if we start from the premise that this is a narcissistic and somewhat simple-minded president. Trump is probably convinced he has achieved a lot (if I am not wrong he wrote that Putin was listening to him carefully). Furthermore, here again we see personalization of an important matter and reducing it to the “achievement of one or two people.” The entire social, geopolitical, cultural, media, economic, and other context of the war is overshadowed. For days, we analyze what was said and what was not said on the phone, and we don’t even know if a physical meeting between the two leaders will ever take place. What Trump achieved is publicity (like teenagers on social media counting likes), but there is also the usual pretense that the USA is doing something for Ukraine. This is their old tactic: let’s make a quick fix, we have to do something, let’s do something! That is what I remember from the breakup of Yugoslavia to Iraq, Syria, Libya... Russia did not enter the war (a word that Putin now uses, which has great and long-term significance) without being provoked. Even if it wants a peace agreement, it needs interlocutors who want the same and will act in good faith.

The second question or statement, which implicitly suggests the conclusion that Putin “won” because in the end Trump gave in and accepted that the peace plan comes first, and then talks on ceasefire, is nonsense. Why? Because the life support to the Ukrainian army (and state) comes from the USA. A ceasefire can only come if Trump orders the end of military aid, i.e., if he turns off the switch of the military machine, along with satellite guidance, decisions on military supplies, etc. In such a situation, it can be expected that Russia will face a real test: if it continues to shoot at an army that is already powerless, it will show the whole world whether it really wants to end the fratricidal war of two peoples who lived together and understood each other for decades — until “Western democracy” came with Nuland’s sandwiches in 2014 (or even before).

But can and will Trump stand that? Even the sparrows know he does not make decisions alone (hence the changing tone, morning decisions that don’t hold by evening, etc.). Those acting in the shadows, in gray suits and hats (as Jeffrey Sachs often describes them), have other ideas about what peace in Ukraine means. The fact that they colonized it, indebted it with every bullet and missile sent as “aid,” with every agreement for the use not only of rare minerals but also fertile land, all that is the stake of the American oligarchy, which lives as a vampire on blood. Even on a visible and public level, experts recognize dissonant tones among people in Trump’s closest environment, between Kellogg and Witkoff. In short, the question here is whether the USA even has a “Ukraine policy” and whether it is in the interest of peace in Europe, the region, and between the two countries. I am not convinced that this administration has any vision or unity, and least of all common sense and sincere desire for peace.

The exercise of extracting a scorecard from every episode, every day spent in war or bizarre diplomatic activity — about who defeated or humiliated whom (symbolically) — is not peace work. Such a view turns us all into fans and bettors, as if we were in a sports stadium or a betting shop, for entertainment and expression of suppressed passions. True diplomacy first requires goodwill and sincere will from all parties (my old teachers from the Nordic peace studies school, back when Yugoslavia was bleeding, taught me long ago that almost not a single conflict has only two sides, even less they are “good” and “bad” guys). A mediator is needed who is not directly involved, but is dedicated to peace and skilled in building trust, constructive dialogue, and solutions — i.e. constructive and gradual diplomacy led by people with experience, but also with the immense patience needed in such a complex conflict with many victims. Here, a “Dayton-type” agreement will not be possible, nor will the Americans be able to impose peace or a ceasefire by decree. That is why, in that interview, I tried to broaden the perspective by introducing China as a potential mediator.

To conclude, if there was an expectation for me to direct all my emotional and intellectual arsenal against the Europeans as the most immediate peace spoilers, that was a waste of time. For me, there is no doubt — whether Europe is portrayed as NATO or the EU or something in between, that is already settled. They are in a warlike frenzy that is hard to understand because it is self-destructive. However, I intended to emphasize that Trump/USA is no better; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde figure is not a credible interlocutor, nor does he have the knowledge, team, patience, or will for genuine (positive) peace. Therefore, if we are fair as analysts, we should not easily fall into the trap of arguing that the West has one good (pro-peace) side and another (pro-war) side. They are Siamese twins who share the same culture of violence, the same structural violence (in the form of hyper-imperialism), and are prepared to go to war (in Ukraine or elsewhere) — because for them peace is an exception, and it is hardly profitable business.