Some in America might want to save Russia from itself, and rightly so. But the current deal only makes things worse. The US needs a clearer, more comprehensive plan to address the issue.
There are few enough ways to state it: Russian President Vladimir Putin has not won on the battlefield. He has not conquered Ukraine, ousted its leaders, or captured all of Donbas as he claimed he would. If he had achieved these goals, why doesn’t he hold a victory parade in Moscow with Zelenskyy and his followers in chains behind him? Why does the war still go on? Why do Russian casualties continue—around 1,000 a day—and why is there no peace? The clear and true answer is that Putin has lost the war and keeps on losing it.
NATO has strengthened, European countries are rearming, and Ukraine now has Europe’s largest army and a strong national identity that it lacked four years ago. Russia has suffered 1 to 1.5 million casualties, with 40% of its economy dedicated to war spending. It continues to fight primarily thanks to help from China, Iran, and North Korea—evidence of the extreme weakness not only of Russia but also of this patchwork alliance.
Now, maybe Putin manages to secure a deal he can call a victory, but he only achieves this thanks to America, which, contrary to pro-Moscow narratives, is now trying to help Moscow rather than Ukraine. It’s a win that the American administration might give to Russia for its own reasons.
But Russia will find it hard to persuade its people and the world that a true victory has happened. It can tell any fairy tale it wants, but the facts are clear: Europe and NATO have grown stronger, while Russia has become weaker even compared to its Chinese and North Korean allies. The country has suffered enormous hardship. Global public opinion and a free press will remain supportive of Ukraine, against Russia, and will report on Putin’s defeat. Even in the US, despite the efforts of the administration, public opinion stays against Russia. This is a deep feeling that can’t be changed overnight by tweaking a few social media posts.
In a peace settlement under these circumstances, Putin could easily fall after any deal, and Russia would face a new internal political struggle. Many believe this possibility suggests that Putin is putting on a show, spreading confusion and disinformation. Putin is drowning, and there are no easy ways to save him.
But even if he is truly committed to a peace agreement, there are two historical paths to consider—one from Russia and one from America. The first, the Russian path, is that it is right to help Putin save himself and Russia. However, this must lead to long-term stability and not lay the groundwork for a new war in five or ten years. The war being prepared for soon is further proof of the deep sense of defeat felt in Moscow. The real point is that Russia and Putin need to be protected from the myth that military victory is the path to the nation’s salvation. Russia has enormous potential for economic growth, and that is where it must focus.
Another point is America’s fatigue with its draining role as the global policeman. Some isolationists would prefer America to focus on the continent and leave the rest of the world to partners with whom deals can be made. Of course, this idea might seem workable from Washington. However, there are issues if it were truly implemented. The American market today accounts for 70% of all global listings. If the world were divided into spheres of influence and America retreated into its own basin, global investments would naturally be redistributed differently.
At best, America could hold onto 30-35% of the global market, roughly half of its current listings. The entire American economy would experience a contraction. A similar issue applies to its public debt, which is substantially underwritten by the world today and would then fall solely on the shoulders of US citizens, who might not be able to bear it.
President Donald Trump is signing a series of bilateral agreements that, in theory, should compensate for a drop in the stock market. But that is only in theory. If America truly retreats into a limited strategic sphere, many of these agreements—signed under the current circumstances of America’s global role, holding 70% of the world market—might not be honored.
That is, America certainly faces enormous problems today due to the Chinese challenge. However, China reached this point with a long-term strategy, not impulsive moves. This indicates that if America genuinely wants to confront it, it must think in Chinese terms and adopt a long-term plan. The issue of rare earths (REEs) illustrates this point. The Americans were aware for a long time of Beijing’s leverage over rare earths as a negotiating tool, but they believed Beijing would not resort to a blockade. Yet, that was not the case. Therefore, especially now, America needs to shift its thinking.
An interesting aspect in this situation is China’s stance toward Russia. It supports Moscow, enabling it to wage war but not to win it. Beijing assists Moscow while keeping a clear commercial interest in mind. That means Beijing stays cautious, ready to withdraw or change course if Moscow shifts its position. However, this approach only works as long as the war doesn’t drag on. As the conflict drags on, Beijing’s position becomes more fragile. Russia faces a choice: exhaust itself to pay Beijing or surrender to Ukraine. Today, the choice seems to bleed for Beijing. But if Russian casualties rise and the fighting drags on, opinions might shift. This is a concern for Moscow and Beijing. Currently, Moscow and Beijing are maintaining a balance. But if Russian costs become too high, Beijing will face a tough decision: abandon Moscow to its fate, with unpredictable consequences, or truly help Russia by using its own resources. With its economy struggling, Beijing’s decision will be difficult.
President Trump is right to seek peace urgently, but the delicate balance between Russia and China in this conflict is highly fragile. America’s future is in jeopardy. For this reason, perhaps more than a quick peace plan imposed on Ukraine, Europe, and Asian partners is necessary.
(thanks to Giuseppe Rippa for the conversation)
Se la Russia è quella raffigurata in questa analisi non sono credibili gli allarmi di pericolo di invasione dell’Ue da parte sua, come sostengono Nato e Ue.