August 15, 2025
Yesterday President Trump in his public statements validated my conclusion that Trump does not know what the Russian position is and that he is going to the meeting to find out what the "parameters" are and that he sees the meeting as a "feel-out meeting" to see whether the conflict in Ukraine can be ended.
In other words, no solution is expected from the meeting for which no preparatory work has been done. So what are the high-blown expectations for the meeting based on? Why build up such expectations when there is no proposal on the table? Where is the "acceptable" offer that Yury Ushakov found in the non-proposal that convinced Putin to go to Alaska?
Is the answer that the purpose of the meeting is to put Putin on the spot by creating expectations of success that cannot be achieved? French President Macron said that Trump told him that he intends to "obtain a ceasefire in Ukraine during the meeting with Putin." When Putin doesn't agree to halt Russia's successful offensive, is the plan to blame Putin for wrecking the chance for peace? Will this help weaken BRICS by Putin being blamed for secondary tariffs imposed on India, China, Brazil, South Africa? (From Bloomberg today: Raising the stakes. Donald Trump warned he would impose "very severe consequences" if Vladimir Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire agreement, following a call with European leaders ahead of his meeting with the Russian president. But Tass reported that the two will hold a joint press conference after the talks. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Europe it's "put up or shut up time" when it comes to sanctions on nations that buy Russian energy.)
That is what it looks like. The Ukrainian front is collapsing. A ceasefire would halt the Russian advance and give the Ukrainian force time to stabilize and reinforce its positions. This is important to the West, because once Russia completes the task of driving the Ukrainian forces out of all of the territory that has been reincorporated into the Russian Federation, there is no land in Ukrainian hands for Trump to swap with Putin.
As I have reported a number of times, a land-swap is not one of the conditions on Putin's list. What Putin means by "the root cause of the conflict" is Russia's sense of insecurity with NATO and US nuclear missiles on Russia's border.
When the Soviet Union put nuclear missiles in Cuba as an offset to the nuclear missiles Washington had put in Turkey on the Soviet Union's border, Washington was intensely upset. Today the US has missiles on Russia's border and the opportunity to have missile bases on Russia's borders ranging from Finland to the South Caucus, which is a large multiplication of the one Soviet missile base in Cuba.
So if one base in Cuba made the US uncomfortable, imagine how uncomfortable Russia is with the prospect of nuclear missiles along the border for thousands of kilometers.
American and European politicians and policymakers have not acknowledged that the root cause of the conflict is NATO on Russia's border. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO and being added to the territory hosting US missile bases was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Trump's land swap and ceasefire do not address Russia's security problem. The root cause of the conflict is Russia's sense of insecurity. That can only be solved by getting NATO off of Russia's borders.
This is the purpose of the mutual security agreement that Putin has been trying to negotiate for a number of years only to be given the cold shoulder as by the Biden regime during December 2021-February 2022.
Ask yourselves if you think Trump is in a sufficiently powerful position to override both the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony and the interest of the American military/security complex.
As long as the Wolfowitz Doctrine holds, and it has not been repudiated by President Trump, the Secretary of State, or Congress, the US is committed to "preventing the rise of any country that can serve as a constraint on American unilateralism." As this is the stated commitment, how can NATO be removed from Russia's border?
President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961 that the rise of the Cold War with the Soviet Union prevented the demobilization of the American war machine that normally followed the end of war. Instead, a powerful military/industrial complex has risen with roots in nearly every state, which gives it enormous power in Congress and among state governors.
That was 64 years ago. Since that time the power of the military/security complex has multiplied. Is this institutionalized power willing to take the hit to its budget and power from a mutual security agreement with its principal enemy?
The questions I am asking are the determining questions. Nothing else that is said matters. Yet, these essential questions are not a part of the discussion in Washington, in Europe, or in the Kremlin. It is as if none of the participants in a growing conflict that could be terminable for life on Earth have any idea of the consequences of their decisions.
Why suddenly did Trump who a couple of days before yesterday said he didn't want to meet with Putin demand a meeting within the week when Trump doesn't even know what the "parameters" are? How can a serious meeting be held when a principal participant doesn't even know what the opponent's position is?
Why did Putin agree to such a meeting with zero preparatory work that exposes him to tremendous pressure to capitulate? This represents the total failure of Putin's advisors. It indicates to the West that Russia is a weak defender of its interest. Perhaps more pressure will be all it takes to bring Russia in line with US hegemony.
If Trump goes into the meeting with this attitude, Putin's choice will be to capitulate or to bring down more demonization on him and Russia for blocking peace.
It does look like Kirill Demitriev and Steve Witcoff, both globalists, have succeeded in setting up Putin and Russia.
What is on test in Alaska is Putin's mettle.