Trump has brought the Ukraine-Russian peace talks to first place-Genau where Putin wants to | Olga Chyzh

AIn more than three years of diplomacy, the last few days have brought a flood of activities in the peace process in Russia-Ukraine-none of this with significant progress. The highly expected peace talks of Russia-Ukraine in Istanbul, which have been invoiced as the first serious negotiations since 2022, came and went with little as a symbolic fanfare. The subsequent two -hour call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on Monday concluded that Trump had withdrawn from the mediation of the peace talks as a whole. Once again, the Russian president received what he wanted without seeing a meeting that he asked himself.

Trump's statement that “the conditions for [the peace] Is negotiated between the two parties, since it can only be as the opposite of his boasting ice last year that only he could end this war, and on a single day. Trump's emphasis on the economic possibilities that Russia offers in view of the extent of the Russian atrocities and a idiot in the European Allises of the United States of the U.S. European Allies in the United States was even more blurred.

If Trump actually withdraws from his self -proclaimed role as a mediator, this would be a welcome change from his earlier efforts to force Ukraine into a deal on the conditions of Russia. Every deduction of it is a step in favor of Ukraine. Ukraine can and should be in negotiations with Russia.

At the same time, anyone who hopes for successful direct negotiations in Russia-Ukraine should report their expectations. Putin has no interest in real negotiations and will probably never do it. He repeatedly refused to meet Zelenskyy – not because there is no agenda, but because the recognition of the Ukraine leaders would mean recognizing the sovereignty of Ukraine. In Putin's imperial worldview, Ukraine is not a country and therefore cannot have a legitimate government. This is from a man whose own political legitimacy is supported by a ballot and voting spectacle with the Bolshoi theater.

Scientists of the international conflict often describe war and negotiations as two sides of the same medal. The war is essentially a costly process of collecting information. It reveals and places the basic truth – the skills of the individual side -, which contributes to identifying the reach of the peace shops, which both sides are expected to continue fighting. The key to an upper hand in peace negotiations is to use the battlefield in order to demonstrate its ability to profit and thus force the other side to reduce their losses and make concessions at the negotiating table.

But after three years of war it is Russia – not Ukraine – that faces the limits of its power. The so -called “second most powerful army in the world” has not achieved its strategic goals. Since January, Russia's territorial progress has had a handful of fields and abandoned villages with a total of 1000 km². And its economy crumbles under the weight of sanctions and mobilization. After the failure of his original plan “Kyiv in three days”, Putin's Plan B seems to be talking to confidence and hope for happiness.

In contrast, Ukraine has proven to be stronger and more resistant than many expected. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has created an impressive international coalition. Ukraine was successful in Russia's first attack, regained the key area and stabilized a large part of the front. The performance on the battlefield has changed the perception of its strength and strengthened its negotiating position.

However, Russia continues to cling to its maximum demands on demilitarization, comprehensive territorial concessions and change of regime. Putin refuses to revise his war goals in the light of the evidence of the battlefield. He continues to demand areas that he cannot assume by force, as if he can make her to him by simply saying that they are his. So what does he do?

In order to understand the logic of the Russian guide, we first have to understand the domestic context in which he works. In contrast to a democratically elected leader, Putin does not see any real checks of domestic institutions or the public. His only political restriction is the inner circle of elites that keep him in power – military and conservative personalities with an imperialist worldview. For them, Ukraine is not just a territory that is proportional to the success of the battlefield. Rather, it is a coveted price that is of central importance for the restoration of the lost size of Russia. Civilian victims and economic pain are secondary concerns. Concessions in this worldview are not only unnecessary – they are unthinkable. As Russia's chief negotiator in Istanbul, Vladimir Medinsky told the Ukrainian delegation: ”[Russia] Fought with Sweden for 21 years. “The news is that Putin is ready to wait.

But he hopes that he doesn't have to wait 21 years. The hope is to be lucky. Putin's complaints have found a fertile floor in Donald Trump and his inner circle. The Russian president is all too happy to take them and they keep running the same trick.

The media often portray Putin as a master strategist, but that is not exactly right. His war strategy has not developed further since the failed flash in Kyiv. He demands the moon and then strikes when it is not delivered. However, what he is is a master manipulator. He believes that he can secure it by narrative if he cannot violate the Ukrainian territory – by convincing sympathetic voices in the West that Russia still deserves it.

From the Crimea to the Minsk agreements, from Syria to Chechnya, Putin has built up his legacy to invent facts on site and venture the world to challenge it. Why should he stop now?

He does not become – only when he can no longer afford the tour to make the balls. But Ukraine has shown that it can hold itself. If the goal is to stop bloodshed, the only way to force Russia to face reality instead of making its own.