From the Moscow Times–

When U.S. President Donald Trump called Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin days after renewed talks between Moscow and Kyiv in Istanbul, many expected him to take a harder stance toward the Kremlin leader, who has been deftly evading Trump’s calls for peace for months.

Instead, both leaders said the call “went very well” and was “substantive and quite candid.” While Trump declared that Russia-Ukraine talks would begin “immediately,” he made no mention of a ceasefire or having put pressure on Putin to commit to peace.

Experts said the call was the latest example of Moscow offering Trump something he could tout as a victory without making any substantial concessions in its three-year invasion of Ukraine.

Political analyst Ivan Preobrazhensky said that despite the renewed discussion around peace efforts, nothing has fundamentally changed following Monday night’s call.

“It seems clear that there was no serious talk of a ceasefire during the conversation — or at least, we haven’t been informed of any such discussion,” Preobrazhensky told The Moscow Times.

“In fact, this has been the defining characteristic of all negotiations so far: Russia has consistently refused to discuss any kind of military ceasefire,” he said.

“Putin’s aim is to avoid alienating Trump while also not engaging seriously in peace talks,” Preobrazhensky said. “So instead of talking about a ceasefire, he offered to discuss a memorandum that could take a long time to produce — and that’s likely the point. Putin’s strategy is to stall for time, dragging out the process until the window for Ukraine to conduct effective military operations begins to close.”

Moscow now sees President Trump as the Weak Leader he is…

Your interpretation of The Moscow Times article aligns with the analysis presented by political analyst Ivan Preobrazhensky, as highlighted in the pieces you provided.

Specifically, the article indicates that Moscow views the recent call with Trump as an opportunity to present a “victory” to him without making substantial concessions in the Ukraine conflict. Preobrazhensky explicitly states that there was “no serious talk of a ceasefire” and that Russia’s consistent refusal to discuss military ceasefires has been a defining characteristic of all negotiations. He concludes that “Putin’s aim is to avoid alienating Trump while also not engaging seriously in peace talks,” and that Putin’s strategy is to “stall for time, dragging out the process until the window for Ukraine to conduct effective military operations begins to close.”

Other reports from The Moscow Times and other sources corroborate this view, suggesting that:

• Putin is using Trump to delay, not end the war: Experts believe Putin is offering something that Trump can tout as a success (like discussions about a “memorandum”) without actually moving towards a genuine peace settlement that would involve Russian concessions.
• No real concessions from Russia: Russia’s stated position remains focused on eliminating the “root causes” of the crisis, which often refers to their maximalist demands like Ukraine’s neutrality and territorial concessions.
• Stalling for time: Putin’s strategy is seen as an attempt to prolong the process, potentially hoping for a shift in the geopolitical landscape or a weakening of Ukraine’s military capabilities.
• Trump’s focus on economic opportunities: The articles suggest Trump’s focus may be more on potential economic ties with Russia after the war rather than ensuring a fair peace deal for Ukraine.

In essence, the articles suggest that Russia perceives Trump’s approach as one that can be managed to their advantage, allowing them to appear open to talks while continuing their military objectives and avoiding any significant compromises.

And the GOP just wants to Walk Away and Leave Ukraine’s Side. President Trump and Vice President Vance need to put on their Big Boy Britches and quit barking Weak Kneed Rhetoric. Putin wants annexed territory in Ukraine so he can build more Russian Tanks and Weapons to fight others with. Built in Ukraine.

The comparison between supporting Ukraine today and the support the American colonies received in 1776 is a powerful one, often used to highlight the principles at stake and the long-term implications of allowing aggression to go unchecked.

Here’s a breakdown of why this parallel is drawn and the arguments for standing strong with Ukraine:

The American Revolution: A Precedent for International Support

In 1776, the American colonies were a nascent, underdog nation fighting for independence against the mighty British Empire. They were outmatched in resources, military experience, and global standing. However, they received crucial foreign aid that was vital to their success:

• France: The most significant ally, France provided substantial military aid (weapons, ammunition, uniforms), financial support (loans), naval power (decisive at Yorktown), and troops. Figures like Lafayette brought expertise and boosted morale. French intervention turned the tide of the war.
• Spain: Provided funding and fought Britain on a “second front,” diverting British resources.
• Netherlands: Offered diplomatic and financial aid, and merchants supplied weapons.

This international support, driven by a combination of shared ideals and geopolitical interests (weakening a rival), was instrumental in enabling the American colonists to achieve their independence.

Why Support for Ukraine is Seen as a Similar Imperative:

The arguments for standing strong with Ukraine today often echo these historical themes, emphasizing shared values, the importance of international law, and the prevention of future conflicts:

1. Defense of Sovereignty and International Law:
   • Against Imperial Aggression: Just as the American colonists fought against an imperial power seeking to control their destiny, Ukraine is fighting against Russia’s attempt to deny its sovereignty and forcefully change its borders.
   • Upholding the Rules-Based Order: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law and the principle that borders cannot be changed by force. Allowing this aggression to succeed would undermine the global system of rules and norms that has largely maintained peace since World War II. It would signal to other potential aggressors that they can invade smaller neighbors with impunity.
   • Preventing a “Pandemic of Aggression”: Many argue that if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, it could embolden other authoritarian regimes to pursue territorial ambitions, leading to a more unstable and dangerous world.
2. Shared Democratic Values:
   • Right to Self-Determination: Ukraine has chosen a democratic and European future, and its people are fighting for their right to determine their own country’s future. Supporting Ukraine is seen as supporting the universal right of self-determination against authoritarian imposition.
   • Test for Democracies: The war is viewed by many as a critical test for democratic nations to reaffirm their values through concrete action. It’s a struggle between democratic ideals and authoritarian expansionism.
3. Geopolitical Stability and Security Interests:
   • European Security Frontier: Ukraine acts as a critical bulwark against Russian expansionism in Europe. If Ukraine falls, it could bring Russian aggression closer to NATO’s borders, creating greater challenges for NATO and the United States’ security.
   • Deterrence: Providing strong support to Ukraine deters Russia from further aggression and signals to potential adversaries that such actions will come at a high cost.
   • Global Impact: The conflict has already impacted global financial markets, energy prices, and agricultural products. Continued conflict or a Russian victory could lead to even greater economic shocks and widespread instability.
4. Moral and Humanitarian Imperative:
   • Brutality of the Invasion: Russia’s invasion has been incredibly brutal, with indiscriminate attacks on civilians, war crimes, and the forced displacement of millions. Supporting Ukraine is also a humanitarian effort to alleviate suffering and protect innocent lives.
   • Responsibility: Many feel a moral responsibility to support a nation fighting for its survival against an unprovoked and unjust invasion.

In essence, the argument is that just as foreign aid to the American revolutionaries was a commitment to their right to self-governance and ultimately shaped the global order, so too is support for Ukraine a commitment to a world where sovereignty is respected, international law is upheld, and democratic values can flourish. To abandon Ukraine would be to signal a weakening of these principles, with potentially far-reaching negative consequences for global security.