Why It Matters: Trump Pushes for Peace Talks to End Russia-Ukraine War

Can Trump Put America First?

This video post, for paid subscribers, provides a robust overview of the state-of-play going into the upcoming U.S.-Russia peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine War. Further below, is a transcript for all subscribers. You pick your preferred mode tuning in!

Transcript:

Hi there. It's February 17th, Monday. I just finished up an MSNBC hit with Ali, who was covering for Andrea Mitchell. Frankly, it was an awesome opportunity. We covered a lot of ground on a very, very complex topic, and I'll post that interview shortly. But I wanted to touch on some issues that we might not have covered in sufficient depth and dive a little further into what is an extremely complex series of events.

This week, Marco Rubio, who is Secretary of State, and Mike Waltz, who is the National Security Advisor—two professionals who, like them or not, are among the most competent on national security—arrived in Saudi Arabia to initiate peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war. There is a possibility that J.D. Vance will also show up. All of this is setting the conditions for a further conversation between the key principals, Putin and Trump.

Negotiations often begin at lower levels, where details are worked out before leaders finalize deals. In this case, the Secretary of State is already involved, which is fairly high-level, but the final agreements will be up to Trump and Putin. That’s not necessarily ideal. Trump is easily manipulated by Putin, lacks thorough preparation, and, despite his self-proclaimed dealmaking prowess, may be willing to accept nearly anything just to claim he ended the Russia-Ukraine war. It’s also unclear if Ukraine will be included in the talks. Right now, it seems they might not be.

Interestingly, the U.S. has not actually participated in negotiations at this level until Trump came back into office or won the election. Up until now, the Europeans and Ukrainians have taken the lead, but now the U.S. is jumping in with both feet into a situation where we haven't been involved. The Europeans and Ukrainians may now find themselves pushed to the margins, which is exactly what Russia prefers. By engaging directly with the U.S., Russia elevates itself as a power on par with Washington, normalizing relations with Trump’s administration. This pattern has repeated across multiple U.S. administrations, going all the way back to George H.W. Bush. Each time, the U.S. has had to learn the hard way that Russia, under Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and now Putin for the past 25 years, is adept at exploiting Western outreach.

Trump already attempted a Russia reset once and failed, yet he’s trying again. Historically, the U.S. has not fared well in these engagements. Unlike Trump, who is starting over as if previous negotiations never happened, Russia won’t reset. They will bank every concession already granted and push for more. Trump has already made key concessions—first conceding Ukrainian territory and then backtracking after backlash. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth initially signaled support for those concessions before reversing course, recognizing the political cost of appearing weak.

Trump’s approach remains erratic. He wants to be the winner, and he doesn’t want Putin to appear as the victor. However, if he can claim victory while also catering to Putin, that would be an ideal scenario for him. One of his biggest shifts has been his stance on Ukraine and NATO. Over 17 years of policy, dating back to the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, has effectively been reversed under Trump’s administration. Initially, Hegseth and Trump pushed for abandoning Ukraine’s NATO path, but national security officials intervened, warning that such moves would be seen as appeasement. Once again, Trump backtracked, but his instincts remain unpredictable.

Right now, the U.S. is poised to repeat the worst mistakes of the past 34 years since Ukraine’s independence. These mistakes include prioritizing Russia’s demands over American interests, despite Trump’s repeated promises of an "America First" policy. Historically, the U.S. has been flexible to Russian threats and pressure, and we haven’t even entered the phase where Russia escalates to nuclear saber-rattling. When that happens, Trump is most likely to buckle.

This situation echoes past pitfalls—falling victim to fear while also hoping to end the war through flawed concessions. Ukraine, for its part, is willing to make some compromises to stop the war, which could include territorial concessions. However, these should not be seen as permanent. Kyiv’s strategy is to set aside thorny issues for now, believing it can reclaim lost territory in the future—either after Putin leaves power or if Russia ever seeks normalized relations. Even so, Ukraine will not fully sacrifice its national security interests.

Zelensky has already rejected one of Trump’s rumored conditions—ceding approximately $18 trillion worth of rare earth minerals to settle what Trump claims is a U.S. debt of $100 billion in military aid provided during the Biden administration. Nearly 80% of that aid went to the U.S. defense sector rather than directly to Ukraine. Kyiv is also unwilling to accept further aid under exploitative terms. Additionally, there are discussions about potential peacekeeping forces from the UK and France once the war ends. China has expressed interest in playing a role, though any Chinese involvement would likely resemble occupation rather than peacekeeping, serving Russian interests rather than neutrality. Now that China has entered the conversation, Russia will likely insist on Chinese peacekeepers rather than European ones.

And the Russians, the Russians will be uncompromising. We should understand that Putin is a sophisticated actor, so he'll make the right noises. He's sending his Minister of Foreign Affairs there, his senior policy advisor to negotiate with Waltz and Rubio, and they'll make the noises to make sure that the U.S. kind of stays on side, continues to cater to Russian interests, but they won't really be flexible. So we're in a situation where Ultimately, the U.S. will have to learn the lessons the hard way.

Ukraine is going to be in a weakened condition. I think the Russians are going to play for sanctions relief. They're going to play for ending U.S. support. Ukrainians are going to have to go it alone for a while with what we've already pushed over to them in the waning days of the Biden administration. The Europeans are going to be there trying to support Ukraine in a bigger way. But it's going to be a muddling through with Ukraine weaker, Russia stronger.

Russian morale buoyed, weakened on the Ukrainian side. All these things in place until the Trump administration learns the lesson, hopefully, and recognizes that the only way that Trump could get a win and put America first is by supporting Ukraine, by supporting the Europeans. That is not... a completely remote possibility.

There are going to be some conditions to this. I think a deal where the US invests, a fair deal, where the US invests into Ukraine and to access rare earths is actually a good thing. Our strongest relationships with Ukraine have been when there is a value and an interest component. The US securing rare earth mineral rights scratches the itch for interests. The values proposition will be appealing to some parts of the US establishment, some traditional Republicans that are actually still even being vocal in support of Ukraine. You can see that with House and Senate leadership showing up at MSC meeting with Zelensky.

The Europeans are assuming a bigger role with burden sharing, another area where I think there should be some sort of rebalancing. We are being, you know, Trump administration, of course, is being very heavy handed, burning lots of bridges, but some sort of rebalancing that allows the U.S. to potentially put more resources towards the looming threat of China and Chinese aggression. Not necessarily a bad thing.

So... those parts of the formula should play out and counsel the Trump administration to stay the course with Europe, stay the course with Ukraine. But again, lots of unpredictability, not, this is should be perceived as intentional. This should be perceived as just Trump era chaos. But it does throw a lot of players into a tailspin. Our allies, most importantly, Europe and Ukraine and also Russia thrown for a bit of a tailspin trying to figure out what it could do, how it could keep the Trump administration engaged.

So a lot going on here. I think the best thing that we could see here is the continuing efforts of the national security establishment in trying to drag Trump to make good decisions for US long-term national security interests. And that fight is going on.

We could see that evidently and clearly over the course of the past week. And the longer that goes on, the longer the US stays on sides, the more pressure shifts back to Russia and eases on Ukraine. So that's the state of affairs.

Looking forward to having another conversation about this with you as events unfold.

My book, coming out next week, really dives into these issues, these historical mistakes, and provides a prescription going forward on how we can do better, making sure that we do secure American interests and not put Russia first, as we've historically done.

Thanks for listening in and catch you later.