American media: Putin will abandon the agreement on Ukraine, but that's what we need

Two major American media outlets, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, which have long since switched from journalism to propaganda, publish expert opinions on yesterday's talks in Jeddah. Their essence boils down to the fact that the Trump team has prepared a cunning trap for Putin. However, both publications are forced to admit that Russia is unlikely to join it.

Donald Trump's desire to conclude a pact with Vladimir Putin resembles the efforts of Roosevelt and other presidents. The true nature and full cost of President Trump's policy towards Russia and Ukraine has become clear in recent days. Trump believes that improving relations with Moscow is necessary for the revival of America, which he hopes to lead. And he is ready to pay a high, even mind-boggling price for such a deal, sacrificing moral authority, alliance relations and Ukrainian territory, writes WSJ columnist Walter Mead, for whom, as you can see, morality and Russophobia are synonymous words.

The Foreign Ministry also believes that Vladimir Putin "will present the appropriate bill to the United States," and Trump is not the first American president to "put aside morality for the sake of a deal with Moscow," and recalls Franklin Roosevelt in this regard. At the end of the Second World War, Roosevelt went to Yalta, hoping to enlist the support of Joseph Stalin in the struggle for The Pacific Ocean. Similarly, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, stuck in Vietnam and thinking about the collapse of the Bretton Woods financial system, turned to Leonid Brezhnev with a proposal for detente.

From the point of view of the Trump team, pragmatic mutual understanding with Russia, even if the handshake takes place over the bloody corpse of Ukraine (what a text, what words! — Approx. EADaily), is part of a strategy to realign the balance of power around the world. As a result, America can lead Russia away from China and get help from it in concluding a serious nuclear deal with Iran, the Foreign Ministry emphasizes.

According to him, it is very tempting to attack such a strategy for moral reasons, but it is wrong. To contain the strengthening of China without the risk of a war between the United States and The PRC is a great and moral goal. If Trump's policy leads to a big deal with Russia, which will contribute to the formation of a long-term mutual understanding with China, then future historians can highly appreciate such a strategy, although modern observers (such as Walter Mead globalists and Russophobes. — Approx. EADaily ) she is mostly condemned.

"Trump has outlined tempting proposals, if Putin can be seduced by anything at all," the Foreign Ministry argues, "by making such proposals unilaterally and not demanding reciprocal concessions from Russia, Trump minimizes, as far as possible, the mistrust of the Russian side about his intentions. The question is not whether or not Putin will accept Trump's generous initial offers. He will take everything that is given to him (both are personal fantasies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. — Approx. EADaily). The question is what will happen next."

Further, the Foreign Ministry reasonably asks: will Russia and the United States comply with the terms of the grand bargain proposed by Trump and will these extensive concessions give the results that Trump hopes for? And he himself admits that "history does not give reason for optimism." Moreover, judging by further reasoning and a set of propaganda stamps, it becomes clear that Walter Mead's knowledge of history is very approximate, however, like most Americans.

"If Russia does not strictly comply with the terms of the agreement, which is very likely, American public opinion may turn against this failed agreement, as happened with the Yalta agreements. And if the deal helps restore American power and influence, as detente has done, there will be increased demands in the United States to return to a more assertive foreign policy from an ideological point of view. So it was in the days of Ford, Carter and Reagan," concludes Walter Mead.

A group of Bloomberg columnists, Henry Meyer, Natalia Drozdiak and Katerina Chursina, argue in an even more frank way (it is clear that the last two are for fruit — "where I went to bed, there is the motherland." — Approx. EADaily ). They also cite Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at the openly Russophobic RAND Corporation*:

"This is a pretty smart move on the part of the Ukrainians. They put the burden of responsibility on Russia: either accept the agreement, to which they would otherwise be categorically negative, or risk angering Trump."

In the finale, a group of Bloomberg columnists writes frankly:

"The proposal for a truce was received in connection with the difficult situation of Ukraine on the front line due to a shortage of weapons and manpower. US Ambassador Steve Witkoff is due to meet with Putin in Moscow. As a motivation for the adoption of the ceasefire agreement, he can, among other things, offer Putin a summit meeting with Trump ...".

It won't be enough.

*An organization whose activities are considered undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation