Russia seeks to comprehend fully the various constraints on Trump - Russia News Now
therussophile.org -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 2:59:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, Presidential Campaigns
Another round of negotiations between Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian leadership? A meeting between Witkoff and President Putin is now imminent. At the same time, General Keith Kellogg has been in Kiev. This comes as Trump's so-called 'ultimatum' is set to expire - although Trump himself casts doubt whether the sanctions that may follow might not 'bother' Putin at all.
Has anything changed - beyond Russia's accelerating advances across the extent of the contact line?
In one sense, nothing has changed. The Russian position remains as set out by President Putin on 14 June 2024. Has the U.S. position changed? No.
Earlier this month, Trump 'whisperer' General Kellogg suggested that the U.S. deploy all of its ballistic-missile submarines to see whether Putin was "bluffing". So there you have it: Kellogg continues to believe that Putin is 'bluffing'. It seems that the Kellogg faction in Team Trump simply cannot either hear or assimilate what Putin has been telling them since June 2024 ('root causes are what matters').
For Kellogg, et al, pressure on Putin alone is what will bring the Kellogg ceasefire.
The Chair of Russia's Federation Committee on International Affairs Grigory Karasin, a senior Russian negotiator, laid out the situation very clearly: "All the emotions now dominating the media space - with all these statements and references to big names, such as Trump - should be taken calmly", Karasin told Izvestia:
"There will be contacts with him [Witkoff] that will reveal what the United States actually thinks, not for the public eye - about the absolutely destructive role currently played by the European Union countries, which tightly control the Zelensky regime. All of that will be discussed. I believe that following these contacts, we will at least know everything of substance. Therefore, we must remain patient, composed, and resist emotional responses".
It seems that, from the Russian perspective, the purpose is to fully understand the U.S. framework of limitations within which Trump operates.
It is within this 'limitations' context that Trump's comments about having two Ohio class nuclear submarines "cruise the coast" of Russia must be understood. He and his close adviser Kellogg's statements on submarines reflect a miscasting of the role of second strike submarines -they must lie silently, and undetected, on the ocean floor, and absolutely not be flaunted in full view!.
But in Trump's case, his silly comment was perhaps designed more for domestic effect. Trump is under multiple pressures. He is entrapped by metastasizing Epstein allegations (with more shoes set to drop reportedly). And like a number of past U.S. Presidents, he is trapped by Israel - whether by the web of donors and big money interests, or be it, like Clinton, by more salacious and damaging threats.
Sensing weakness, the Republican Old Guard led by Mitch McConnell and Senator Graham espy an opportunity to weaken the MAGA constituency, and return the GOP from its populist flowering to its traditional 'Country Club' uniparty leadership.
A powerful Senate committee has voted - with strong support from both Democrats and Trump's fellow Republicans - to send a spending measure that includes $1 billion of support for Ukraine to a full vote in the Senate, despite the Administration having asked Congress to eliminate such funding in its defence budget request.
Separately, Republican Senator Murkowski and Democrat Shaheen, both members of the Appropriations Committee, have introduced a bill that would provide $54.6 billion in aid to Ukraine over the next two years. (The Murkowski-Shaheen bill faces a stiff struggle to become law).
Trump, of course, had campaigned on the platform of no further funding for the Ukraine war to his MAGA base. Should the $1 billion measure pass, his MAGA supporters - already infuriated by what they claim to be an Epstein cover up - will feel a further betrayal.
No President can afford to appear that he is being steamrollered by Congress, not least over a key campaign promise. He (or she) must seek to dominate Congress, and not become its cat-paw - especially as the Senate furore for sanctions is all about blocking Trump's way to strategic normalisation with Russia.
It may be that Trump's 'sub-deployment' statement therefore was made more for Congressional 'effect' - to foreground his 'tough' approach towards Russia, and to imply he has other tools, beyond sanctions, (on which he is a sceptic).
That - the Ukraine impasse - however, is not the end to Trump's woes, and to his shackles. The Israeli 'Judea' (the Settler, Messianic) Establishment has rebuffed Witkoff's attempts to stop the genocide and starvation of Gazans. The images of famine are hurting Trump, who according to Hebrew language Yedioth Ahronoth, citing sources close to Netanyahu, claims that Trump has given a green light for a strong military operation (as long as negotiations have reached a dead end). "Matters are heading towards complete occupation of the Strip - and, if this does not suit the Chief of Staff, let him resign" is the blunt advice from the Netanyahu entourage.
The Gaza war is recasting American politics, especially among young Americans (and Europeans). Trump recently warned a Jewish donor that his base are coming "to hate Israel". Trump's base is scattering away.
After a massive backlash to the Trump administration's cutting of federal emergency funding to cities and states that boycott Israel, the DHS was obliged to update its memo to remove the Israel boycott prohibition. The order now only applies to DEI and immigration violations. The MAGA base increasingly see 'Israel First' policies as a betrayal of the 'America First' campaign pledge.
So, per Grigory Karasin's analysis, "contacts with Steve Witkoff should reveal the true position of the U.S. [its constraints and limitations], in contrast to the loud statements coming from the White House on the run-up to the expiration of the "resolution deadline" for the Ukrainian conflict - and the introduction of new anti-Russian sanctions".
Witkoff, on the other hand, is likely to be probing for any flexibility in Russia's stated position, and to explore the possibility for the imposing of deadlines for reaching agreements with Kiev. Moscow supports a fourth round of Istanbul talks. The media frenzy, the missile sub flap, are all part to typical Trumpian pressure tactics ahead of negotiations.
The reality that the frenzy hides, however, is that Trump has few cards with which to escalate pressure on Russia (weapons inventories are exhausted) and resort to longer-range missiles would raise a clamour amongst the MAGA that Trump is taking America to WW3.
What Trump really needs is something to protect himself from Senate pressures that threaten to tie him into never-ending sanctions and Ukraine funding escalation - something that at least portends an end to conflict within a reasonable timeline.
Is that possible? Doubtful. Kiev seems to be on a slow fuse self-destruction. It is too early to see who might emerge from the turmoil.
Paradoxically, Trump's Ohio Class 'cruising of Russia's coastline' taunt - though absurd - has given Moscow the pretext to propose something that has long been on President Putin's 'Drawing Board':
Russia officially announced its withdrawal from the self-imposed restrictions under the moratorium on the deployment of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles (INF Treaty), justifying this by the actions of the U.S., which long ago deployed similar systems in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, thereby violating the status quo. For the first time, Russia officially points out that the threat of American INF missiles comes not only from Europe but also from the Asia-Pacific region.
At the level of formal logic, Moscow's lifting of the moratorium on INF deployment is nothing more than a symmetrical response to prior escalation by Washington. But on a deeper level, Russia is not just 'responding'- it is creating a new strategic architecture in the absence of international restrictions. And among other things, it has serial production of the Oreshnik in its hands, as well as a direct ally, North Korea, in the Asia Pacific region.
This paradigm shift is intended to be strategic. Whereas Moscow previously relied on treaties and 'playing normal', now it relies on unpredictability, interconnected fronts, and a balance of threats.
from https://www.sott.net/article/501261-Russia-seeks-to-comprehend-fully-the-various-constraints-on-Trump
Sign Our PetitionThe recent article discussing negotiations between Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the Russian leadership reflects a larger narrative of power dynamics and geopolitical posturing that reveals the complexities of U.S.-Russia relations in an era marked by both nostalgia and anxiety over past conflicts. This discourse sheds light on the historical context of these interactions, particularly how they are influenced by a mélange of domestic political pressures and international strategic calculations. The implications of Trump’s approach to negotiations with Russia need to be understood through the lens of historical precedent and the ongoing struggles for social and economic justice.
Historically, U.S. foreign policy has oscillated between engagement and confrontation with Russia, a legacy rooted in the Cold War. The profound mistrust that characterizes this relationship stems from decades of ideological rivalry, with both nations vying for global influence. The article's mention of Trump's and Kellogg's positions, particularly their insistence on military might as a form of negotiation, echoes the militaristic approach of past administrations—an approach that often neglects the underlying social issues and humanitarian concerns that both countries face. It is essential to recognize that military posturing does not resolve the economic and social inequities that fuel global unrest. Instead, it perpetuates cycles of violence and instability, diverting attention from pressing issues like poverty, healthcare, and civil rights that affect ordinary citizens.
Moreover, the article's portrayal of Trump as entangled in multiple pressures, including allegations related to Epstein and the influence of powerful lobbyists like AIPAC, highlights the pervasive corruption and the interconnectedness of money, power, and politics. This situation reflects a broader systemic issue where elected officials are often beholden to special interests, undermining democratic ideals and prioritizing elite agendas over the needs of the populace. The public must be vigilant and critical of this dynamic, recognizing that political discourse is frequently manipulated to serve the interests of a few rather than the many. Acknowledging this reality is vital for assessing the integrity of U.S. foreign policy and its implications for global peace.
Additionally, the reaction from the Russian side, particularly the comments by Grigory Karasin, emphasizes a critical perspective on Western media's portrayal of the conflict. Karasin's assertion that Western narratives are driven by emotion rather than substance reflects a common critique of how media simplifies complex geopolitical situations. This simplification serves to stoke fear and division rather than foster understanding and dialogue. It is crucial for the public to engage in media literacy, questioning narratives that seem designed to provoke rather than enlighten, and to consider the broader social and economic factors at play in international relations.
As we observe the ongoing negotiations and military posturing, it is imperative to connect these discussions to contemporary social struggles both domestically and internationally. The U.S. continues to grapple with issues such as systemic racism, economic inequality, and the impacts of climate change—challenges that demand collaborative solutions rooted in justice and equity. Instead of succumbing to the rhetoric of dominance and confrontation, policymakers should prioritize diplomacy and cooperation that address the root causes of conflict. This approach not only benefits international relations but also aligns with the moral imperatives of social justice movements striving for a more equitable world.
In conclusion, the dynamics at play in Trump’s negotiations with Russia serve as a microcosm of the larger issues facing global society today. As citizens, it is our responsibility to critically engage with these narratives and advocate for a foreign policy that values diplomacy over aggression, and one that prioritizes the well-being of people over the interests of powerful elites. By doing so, we contribute to a more just and peaceful world, challenging the status quo and pressing for a future that recognizes the interconnectedness of all struggles for justice, both at home and abroad.
The geopolitical landscape continues to be shaped by complex interactions between major powers, particularly in the context of U.S.-Russia relations, which are further complicated by domestic American politics. The recent article detailing negotiations involving Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian leadership raises critical questions regarding the U.S. foreign policy approach and its implications for international stability. As we scrutinize the article, it is essential to recognize the historical context underlying these developments, including the legacy of Cold War tensions and the ongoing impacts of U.S. military strategies. These elements underscore the need for a more nuanced and informed public discourse on foreign policy matters.
Historically, U.S.-Russia relations have oscillated between cooperation and confrontation, often dictated by the prevailing political climate. The article points out the persistent negotiations between the Trump administration and Russian officials, which seem to be filled with contradictions and miscalculations. Trump's public comments, including the suggestion that U.S. submarines be used as a show of force, reflect a misunderstanding of military strategy and diplomacy. This misunderstanding can be traced back to a broader trend among political elites who prioritize spectacle over substantive engagement. The reliance on military might as a deterrent has often overshadowed diplomatic avenues that could lead to more sustainable solutions. In this context, it is imperative for Americans to demand a foreign policy that prioritizes dialogue over posturing, recognizing that real security comes from cooperation rather than intimidation.
Moreover, the article highlights a disconcerting trend of political figures and advisers, such as General Keith Kellogg, who cling to outdated notions of strength characterized by military displays. The failure to grasp the "root causes" of conflicts, as acknowledged by Russian negotiator Grigory Karasin, points to a need for a more comprehensive understanding of global dynamics. This includes recognizing the role of economic sanctions, military alliances, and the historical grievances that shape national identities. As citizens, we must advocate for a foreign policy framework that incorporates these complexities and seeks to address the underlying issues that fuel tensions, rather than simply responding with threats or ultimatums.
In light of the ongoing challenges in U.S.-Russia relations, there are concrete actions that Americans can take to foster a more constructive foreign policy. Grassroots movements can push for increased transparency in foreign negotiations, ensuring that citizens are informed about the implications of U.S. actions abroad. Engaging with representatives to express support for diplomacy-focused initiatives can help shift the narrative around national security. Furthermore, educating ourselves and others about the intricacies of international relations, including the historical context of U.S. interventions, is crucial. By building a well-informed electorate, we can challenge the prevailing narratives that prioritize military solutions over diplomatic ones.
Lastly, the article serves as a reminder of the broader systemic issues at play in U.S. foreign policy, including the influence of special interests and the impact of domestic political pressures on international decisions. The mention of Trump being "entrapped" by various pressures highlights the interconnectedness of domestic and foreign policy. It is essential for Americans to recognize these connections and advocate for greater accountability and integrity in political leadership. Supporting candidates who prioritize ethical governance and diplomatic engagement can help reshape the political landscape. By fostering a culture of engagement and accountability, we can work toward a more peaceful and cooperative global community.
In conclusion, the complexities of U.S.-Russia relations, as outlined in the article, necessitate a thoughtful and informed response from American citizens. By understanding the historical context, advocating for diplomatic solutions, and holding our leaders accountable, we can contribute to a more peaceful and just world. It is through collective action and informed discourse that we can challenge the militaristic tendencies that have historically dominated U.S. foreign policy and work toward a future characterized by cooperation and mutual understanding.
Analyzing the article reveals several urgent issues regarding international diplomacy, military strategy, and political accountability. Here’s a detailed list of actions individuals can take to engage constructively with these matters:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Stay Informed**: Follow credible news sources and analysts that cover foreign diplomacy and military policy. Understanding the nuances of international relations is crucial.
2. **Engage in Dialogue**: Discuss these issues within your community or social circles. Raising awareness can lead to collective action and greater public pressure on policymakers.
3. **Support Organizations**: Contribute to or volunteer with organizations that promote peace, diplomacy, and accountability in government decisions regarding foreign policy.
4. **Contact Elected Officials**: Communicate your concerns directly to your representatives. Politicians often respond to the voices of their constituents.
5. **Promote Transparency**: Advocate for transparency in government dealings, particularly regarding military strategies and international negotiations.
### Exact Actions You Can Take
1. **Sign Petitions**: - **"No More Military Escalation"**: Find and sign petitions on platforms like Change.org that oppose military escalation and advocate for diplomatic solutions. - **Example Petition**: "Call for a Diplomatic Resolution to U.S.-Russia Tensions". A petition can be initiated on a platform like MoveOn.org.
2. **Write to Elected Officials**: - **Who to Write**: - Your local Congressman/Congresswoman - Senators representing your state - **Example Contacts**: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren**: Email: https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact, Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez**: Email: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact, Mailing Address: 1651 Third Avenue, Suite 311, New York, NY 10128
3. **What to Say**: - Express your concerns about the current diplomatic approach. - Advocate for a focus on peace-building and constructive dialogue with Russia. - Urge them to prioritize diplomacy over military threats. - Example message: "Dear [Official's Name], I am writing to express my concern regarding the current U.S. foreign policy approach towards Russia. I urge you to support diplomatic efforts and prioritize peace-building initiatives over military escalation. The people of our nation deserve a government that seeks to resolve conflicts through dialogue, not threats."
4. **Engage in Community Forums**: Attend town hall meetings or community forums where foreign policy is discussed. Bring up issues related to military spending and diplomacy.
5. **Use Social Media**: Amplify your voice by sharing information and articles related to U.S.-Russia relations. Use hashtags relevant to peace and diplomacy to reach a broader audience.
6. **Join Advocacy Groups**: Get involved with organizations focused on peace, such as the **Peace Action** or **Veterans for Peace**, which often have campaigns and resources for grassroots activism.
### Conclusion
Taking personal action in response to international issues is vital for fostering a culture of accountability and constructive engagement. By signing petitions, contacting elected officials, and participating in community discussions, individuals can contribute to a collective movement advocating for peace and diplomacy rather than conflict and escalation.