Trump–Putin Meeting Signals The West is Moving To Contain a Defeat By Russia

Military exhaustion, political costs, and past diplomatic betrayals shape a fragile ceasefire offer likely framed to serve American reorientation

Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work, it means more lies exposed, more corruption uncovered, and more accountability where it’s long overdue.

If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference.

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv

Ukraine’s military capacity has reached exhaustion, confirmed by assessments from analysts outside mainstream Western defence circles. Swiss intelligence veteran Jacques Baud wrote in his post-NATO briefings that the Ukrainian front was “operationally broken by late spring,” with logistics deteriorating and mobilised units suffering attrition that no Western aid package could reverse. Ukrainian forces remain numerically active but strategically paralysed, as repeated counteroffensives since mid-2023 have led to ground loss, not recovery. The shift now underway was not planned in advance but forced by battlefield developments. Trump first offered Putin a 50-day deadline to secure a ceasefire, then reduced it to ten after a likely Pentagon intervention. That shortening lines up with American defence assessments that Kyiv could not hold under sustained pressure through the autumn.

Shortly before the ten-day mark, Richard Witkoff travelled to Moscow. Russian state press and diplomatic channels reported that the American delegation presented terms that “could be accepted.” Days earlier, Putin stated clearly that two conditions would secure a ceasefire: Ukraine must remove all military assets from the territories Russia claims, and Ukrainian neutrality must be formalised through law, explicitly blocking NATO accession. Both terms echo the legal text proposed in Istanbul in March 2022, when Moscow and Kyiv nearly agreed a draft settlement. That process failed not due to Russian rejection, but because Boris Johnson arrived in Kyiv and reportedly advised Zelensky to withdraw from talks and continue the fight. That visit was later confirmed by David Arakhamia, Ukraine’s lead negotiator at the time, who stated publicly in 2023 that “we could have ended the war in April [2022]” if not for pressure from Western governments.

The same pattern occurred with the Minsk agreements. First signed in 2014 and reaffirmed in 2015, the Minsk process was officially endorsed by France and Germany, yet both states admitted years later that they never intended to enforce it. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a December 2022 interview with Die Zeit that Minsk “was an attempt to give Ukraine time.” Former French President François Hollande confirmed the same in Le Figaro. These admissions were followed by direct condemnation from Putin, who said at the time that “nobody intended to fulfil anything from the agreements... they were just buying time to arm Ukraine.”

(“Putin does not need to meet with Zelensky to meet with me” - Trump denying media insinuations)

This history frames Russia’s current refusal to accept words in place of actions. Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, said in June 2024 that “our patience with Western promises ran out years ago.” Without troop withdrawal, legal neutrality, and enforceable timelines, Russia will continue its military operations.

US officials have reportedly offered partial sanctions relief, another feature that has appeared before in negotiations but failed to materialise in practice. Iranian diplomatic sources familiar with parallel sanctions negotiations have stated repeatedly that the US "offers flexibility on paper, but keeps the infrastructure of control in place." Russia would likely demand structural reversal of energy and financial sanctions, not temporary waivers. Without those, there is no benefit in halting operations.

Western policy analysts not aligned with globalist think tanks have warned that the United States is now trying to manage defeat, not achieve peace. John Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago and leading realist scholar, has said since 2022 that “Ukraine is being used as a tool to weaken Russia, but the strategy is failing.” In his July 2024 lecture in Budapest, Mearsheimer warned that “the game now is about face-saving, not victory.” He added that “the West is trying to freeze a conflict it knows it cannot win.”

(There was mutual interest in holding a meeting from both sides, Russia and the US, it does not matter who first proposed it… I have nothing against a meeting with Zelensky, but certain conditions must first be created for that, and we are still far from achieving them)

Russian planners are aware that a ceasefire now would give NATO time to reorganise. In April 2024, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned that “any talk of freezing the conflict will be viewed as a trick unless legal guarantees and full withdrawal happen first.” Analysts from non-aligned security institutions such as the Centre for Syncretic Studies (Serbia) and the Schiller Institute (Germany) have reached similar conclusions. They argue that the West seeks to pause the conflict to rebuild Ukrainian capacity, while presenting the pause as de-escalation.

The idea of a frozen conflict suits Washington more than Kyiv. It would prevent total Ukrainian state collapse while protecting US reputational standing. That collapse is now written stone whatever the circumstances. Ukraine’s GDP has contracted by over 30 percent since 2022. Its birth rate has dropped below replacement level. More than six million citizens have left. The army now includes men in their sixties due to mobilisation shortfalls. Right now they have started mobilising and training teenagers. Former Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov warned in early 2025 that “the human resource line is reaching the bottom.” These facts suggest that if the war continues on present terms, the Ukrainian state will break down before winter.

For Moscow, the benefits of a legal, verified settlement are significant. Territorial control would be formalised so that military resources could be reallocated. Energy exports to Europe could resume under terms favourable to Russia. More significantly, Russian foreign policy could pivot toward increased cooperation with Iran, Cuba, and a growing network of post-Western aligned African states, including Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, which expelled Western forces and signed resource-sharing agreements with Moscow in 2024 and 2025.

Some factions within the Western alliance may work to sabotage a deal that secures Russia’s objectives. British policy circles, Baltic state governments, and Poland have openly opposed concessions. Their security models depend on continued confrontation with Russia. Any appearance of Russian victory would undermine their strategic posture. These actors could pressure Ukraine to reject or stall implementation, as was done after Istanbul and Minsk. Russia appears prepared for this. Lavrov stated in July 2025, “If we see sabotage, we continue the operation. It’s that simple.”

The most probable US strategy is to secure a pause, refocus resources on the Pacific theatre, and begin long-term efforts to influence Russia’s internal politics. Western media has already intensified its focus on Putin’s health, succession, and civil society in Russia. This is the same transition of strategy used after military stalemates in Iraq and Afghanistan. The tools change, but the goal remains to prevent the emergence of a multipolar world order.

If the US offer now on the table includes legal neutrality, territorial withdrawal, sanctions rollback, and enforceable timelines, Russia will likely accept. If it does not, the war will continue. Russian leaders have shown consistency in their actions and will not accept a symbolic deal that weakens their current position. Any settlement will be judged by what happens on the ground and in law, not what is said in press conferences or agreed in back rooms.

If the deal is signed and implemented on Russian terms, Ukraine as previously structured will no longer exist. The front may freeze, but only after the political and territorial reality has been rewritten. In that case, Russia will have ended the war without succumbing to concessions and through consistent application of force and diplomatic calculation. That outcome would reshape the geopolitical map for a generation.

Authored By:

Global GeoPolitics

Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work, it means more lies exposed, more corruption uncovered, and more accountability where it’s long overdue.

If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference.

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv