Trump says he wants to negotiate about Ukraine. It’s not clear if Putin really does

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin walk together at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, on June 28, 2019. (AP/File)
Short Url
Updated 09 February 2025
Follow

Trump says he wants to negotiate about Ukraine. It’s not clear if Putin really does

  • Trump boasts of his deal-making prowess, called Putin “smart” and threatened Russia with tariffs and oil price cuts unless it comes to the negotiating table
  • But with little incentive to come to the negotiating table, Putin will not easily surrender what he considers Russia’s ancestral lands in Ukraine

Nearly three years after President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, his troops are making steady progress on the battlefield. Kyiv is grappling with shortages of men and weapons. And the new US president could soon halt Ukraine’s massive supply of military aid.
Putin is closer than ever to achieving his objectives in the battle-weary country, with little incentive to come to the negotiating table, no matter how much US President Donald Trump might cajole or threaten him, according to Russian and Western experts interviewed by The Associated Press.
Both are signaling discussions on Ukraine -– by phone or in person -– using flattery and threats.
Putin said Trump was “clever and pragmatic,” and even parroted his false claims of having won the 2020 election. Trump’s opening gambit was to call Putin “smart” and to threaten Russia with tariffs and oil price cuts, which the Kremlin brushed off.
Trump boasted during the campaign he could end the war in 24 hours, which later became six months. He’s indicated the US is talking to Russia about Ukraine without Kyiv’s input, saying his administration already had “very serious” discussions.
He suggested he and Putin could soon take “significant” action toward ending the war, in which Russia is suffering heavy casualties daily while its economy endures stiff Western sanctions, inflation and a serious labor shortage.
But the economy has not collapsed, and because Putin has unleashed the harshest crackdown on dissent since Soviet times, he faces no domestic pressure to end the war.
“In the West, the idea came from somewhere that it’s important to Putin to reach an agreement and end things. This is not the case,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, who hosted a forum with Putin in November and heads Moscow’s Council for Foreign and Defense policies.
Talks on Ukraine without Ukraine
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says Putin wants to deal directly with Trump, cutting out Kyiv. That runs counter to the Biden administration’s position that echoed Zelensky’s call of “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”
“We cannot let someone decide something for us,” Zelensky told AP, saying Russia wants the “destruction of Ukrainian freedom and independence.”
He suggested any such peace deal would send the dangerous signal that adventurism pays to authoritarian leaders in China, North Korea and Iran.
Putin appears to expect Trump to undermine European resolve on Ukraine. Likening Europe’s leaders to Trump’s lapdogs, he said Sunday they will soon be “sitting obediently at their master’s feet and sweetly wagging their tails” as the US president quickly brings order with his ”character and persistence.”
Trump boasts of his deal-making prowess but Putin will not easily surrender what he considers Russia’s ancestral lands in Ukraine or squander a chance to punish the West and undermine its alliances and security by forcing Kyiv into a policy of neutrality.
Trump may want a legacy as a peacemaker, but “history won’t look kindly on him if he’s the man who gives this all away,” said Sir Kim Darroch, British ambassador to the US from 2016-19. Former NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu said a deal favoring Moscow would send a message of “American weakness.”
Echoes of Helsinki
Trump and Putin last met in Helsinki in 2018 when there was “mutual respect” between them, said former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, the summit host. But they are “not very similar,” he added, with Putin a “systematic” thinker while Trump acts like a businessman making “prompt” decisions.
That could cause a clash because Trump wants a quick resolution to the war while Putin seeks a slower one that strengthens his military position and weakens both Kyiv and the West’s political will.
Zelensky told AP that Putin “does not want to negotiate. He will sabotage it.” Indeed, Putin has already raised obstacles, including legal hurdles and claimed Zelensky has lost his legitimacy as president.
Putin hopes Trump will “get bored” or distracted with another issue, said Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat in Geneva who quit his post after the invasion.
Russian experts point to Trump’s first term when they said Putin realized such meetings achieved little.
One was a public relations victory for Moscow in Helsinki where Trump sided with Putin instead of his own intelligence agencies on whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Another was in Singapore in 2019 with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when he failed to reach a deal to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear program.
Previous peace talks
The Kremlin last year said a draft peace agreement that Russia and Ukraine negotiated in Istanbul early in the conflict — but which Kyiv rejected — could be the basis for talks.
It demanded Ukraine’s neutrality, stipulated NATO deny it membership, put limits on Kyiv’s armed forces and delayed talks on the status of four Russian-occupied regions that Moscow later annexed illegally. Moscow also dismissed demands to withdraw its troops, pay compensation to Ukraine and face an international tribunal for its action.
Putin hasn’t indicated he will budge but said “if there is a desire to negotiate and find a compromise solution, let anyone conduct these negotiations.”
“Engagement is not the same as negotiation,” said Sir Laurie Bristow, British ambassador to Russia from 2016-20, describing Russia’s strategy as “what’s mine is mine. And what’s yours is up for negotiation.”
Bondarev also said Putin sees negotiations only as a vehicle “to deliver him whatever he wants,” adding it’s “astonishing” that Western leaders still don’t understand Kremlin tactics.
That means Putin is likely to welcome any meeting with Trump, since it promotes Russia as a global force and plays well domestically, but he will offer little in return.
What Trump can and can’t do
Trump said Zelensky should have made a deal with Putin to avoid war, adding he wouldn’t have allowed the conflict to start if he had been in office.
Trump has threatened Russia with more tariffs, sanctions and oil price cuts, but there is no economic “wonder weapon” that can end the war, said Richard Connolly, a Russian military and economic expert at London’s Royal United Services Institute.
And the Kremlin is brushing off the threats, likely because the West already has heavily sanctioned Russia.
Trump also can’t guarantee Ukraine would never join NATO, nor can he lift all Western sanctions, easily force Europe to resume importing Russian energy or get the International Criminal Court to rescind its war crimes arrest warrant for Putin.
Speaking to the Davos World Economic Forum, Trump said he wants the OPEC+ alliance and Saudi Arabia to cut oil prices to push Putin to end the war. The Kremlin said that won’t work because the war is about Russian security, not the price of oil. It also would harm US oil producers.
“In the tradeoff between Putin and domestic oil producers, I’m pretty sure which choice Trump will make,” said Alexandra Prokopenko, a fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin.
Trump could pressure Russia by propping up the US oil industry with subsidies and lift the 10 percent trade tariffs imposed on China in exchange for Beijing limiting economic ties with Moscow, which could leave it “truly isolated,” Connolly said.
Europe also could underscore its commitment to Kyiv – and curry favor with Trump – by buying US military equipment to give to Ukraine, said Lord Peter Ricketts, a former UK national security adviser.
Lukyanov suggested that Trump’s allies often seem afraid of him and crumble under his threats.
The “big question,” he said, is what will happen when Putin won’t.


UK veterans are ‘ticking time bomb’ after Iraq war chemical exposure

Updated 10 sec ago
Follow

UK veterans are ‘ticking time bomb’ after Iraq war chemical exposure

  • Fifteen former RAF personnel were deployed to the Qarmat Ali water plant in 2003, which was contaminated with sodium dichromate
  • Veterans say they were not screened or protected, and are now living with serious health conditions

LONDON: Fifteen British servicemen who worked on a carcinogen-contaminated water treatment site during the Iraq war say they were not offered biological screening despite official guidance saying they should have been.

The former Royal Air Force members, who have suffered from ailments including cancer, tumors and nosebleeds, told Sky News they were offered no medical assistance or subsequent treatment after having been exposed to toxic sodium dichromate at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in 2003.

The channel said it had seen a letter from the RAF’s medical authority stating that senior officers knew of the dangers posed by the substance.

Peter Lewis, 53, was one of 88 personnel deployed to guard the site, which was deemed vital for getting Iraq’s oil industry up and running. He told Sky: “I’ve had eight or nine operations to remove cancer.

“I’ve had so many lumps taken out of my neck, one on my face. This is something I’m literally fighting every year now. It’s constant.”

Qarmat Ali, the former troops say, was covered in ripped bags of bright orange sodium dichromate.

“We were never warned what the bags of chemicals were,” Jon Caunt, another former serviceman, said. “We were breathing this stuff in.”

His former comrade Tony Watters added: “I never thought about what it was. We were told the site is safe.”

Several months after deployment to the site, however, the servicemen were joined by two workers wearing protective gear who placed signs around it reading: “Warning. Chemical hazard. Full protective equipment and chemical respirator required. Sodium dichromate exposure.”

Watters said: “When you left the site, your uniform was contaminated, your webbing was contaminated.

“You went in your sleeping bag, and that was contaminated. And you were contaminating other people with it back at camp.”

Andy Tosh, who has led the group of veterans as they sought answers from the Ministry of Defence, said: “Even with the warning signs going up … they kept us there. They knowingly kept us exposed.”

The RAF gave some of the men a leaflet on their return to the UK, warning of the dangers of the substance, but not all were told.

The letter seen by Sky acknowledging the dangers posed to the veterans made a “strong” link to “increased risk of lung and nose cancer” as well as numerous other issues. It suggested personnel sent to Qarmat Ali should have their medical records altered to mention their exposure to sodium dichromate.

“Offer biological screening. This cannot be detailed until the numbers exposed are confirmed,” the letter also said.

An inquiry into US personnel deployed to Qarmat Ali found that 830 people were “unintentionally exposed” to sodium dichromate, giving them access to support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. This came after the death of Lt. Col. James Gentry from cancer in 2009, which the US Army determined came “in line of duty for exposure to sodium dichromate.”

There has been no such inquiry by UK authorities despite British personnel being deployed at the site for longer than their American counterparts.

Thirteen of them have suffered from cancer and similar symptoms, including one who developed a brain tumor.

Jim Garth told Sky: “My skin cancer will never go away … It’s treatable, but when the treatment is finished, it comes back, so I’ve got that for life really.”

Lewis added: “I’m actually getting to the point now where I don’t care anymore … sooner or later, it’s going to do me.”

Caunt described his former colleagues’ conditions as a “ticking time bomb.”

He added: “We do not know what’s going to happen in the future."

The MoD insists medical screening was offered to personnel at the time, despite the men stating that it was not. In 2024, several met with Labour MPs about the issue. One, John Healey, who is now the UK defence secretary, said at the time the veterans should have “answers to their important questions.”

In a statement, the MoD said: “We take very seriously the concerns raised by veterans who were deployed to guard the Qarmat Ali Water Treatment Plant in 2003.

“As soon as we were alerted to the possible exposure of Sodium Dichromate, an environmental survey was conducted to evaluate typical exposure at Qarmat Ali. Results showed that the levels at the time were significantly below UK government guidance levels.”

A 2004 letter seen by Sky News suggested, however, that the MoD knew the levels of sodium dichromate were higher.

“Anyone who requires medical treatment can receive it through the Defence Medical Services and other appropriate services,” the MoD said.

“Veterans who believe they have suffered ill health due to service can apply for no-fault compensation under the War Pensions Scheme.”

Watters called on the government to hold an investigation into what happened at Qarmat Ali.

“We are the working class, we are ex-soldiers who have put our lives on the line and you’re turning a blind eye to us,” he said.

Garth added: “We felt let down at Qarmat Ali all those years ago, and we still feel let down now.”