Kremlin website, 2/19/25

Question: Interfax News Agency. Everyone is interested in the outcomes of talks in Riyadh. I am sure they have been reported to you. How do you assess them? Is there a positive result, if I may put it that way, from these talks?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Yes, they have been reported to me. That’s point number one. Number two, I rate them high, there is a result.

The first thing I would like to say is that we have agreed to resume normal operation of our respective diplomatic missions. The unending expulsions of diplomats from Washington DC and Moscow do not do anything good to anyone. If things keep going that way, we will end up with just cleaners working in those buildings. Their work is important, of course, but it is not what diplomatic missions are created for. That is my first point.

Second, I believe we have made the first step to resume work across a variety of areas of mutual interest, including the Middle East in the broad sense of the word – I mean our presence in Syria, the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, and so on. There are many issues there that involve both the United States and the Russian Federation, even though, of course, the situation in Ukraine is our priority.

But we also have other matters to consider such as the economy, and our joint activities on global energy markets. So, in general… Yes, outer space too, of course, because despite the problems of the past three years, we are still working together in outer space, and US astronauts and Russian cosmonauts are working on the ISS. Work continues, and prospects are good. All of that was reviewed at the meeting in Riyadh. The assessment is positive.

Overall, as I was told, the atmosphere was very friendly. As I was told by the participants from our side, unlike US representatives we dealt with earlier, these people from the American side were open for negotiation without any bias or condemnation of what has been done in the past. In any case, there was nothing like that in the bilateral contacts. Our partners in dialogue are ready to work together, open for joint work.

Question: The Europeans are rather agitated, almost in panic, that they are not participating in the negotiations in any way, and similar sentiments prevail among Ukrainian officials. Everyone wants to have a voice. What should be done with all of them?

Vladimir Putin: A voice in what? I have just stated that the purpose and subject of our negotiations was the restoration of Russian-American relations. Does someone wish to act as a mediator between Russia and the United States? These are likely excessive demands.

Moreover, the crux of resolving all highly acute issues, including the Ukrainian settlement, lies in the fact that without enhancing the level of trust between Russia and the United States, it is impossible to resolve many problems, including the Ukrainian crisis. The very purpose of this meeting was precisely to enhance trust between Russia and the United States.

As for other participants, first and foremost, Russia has never refused contacts with European counterparts. Russia has never turned its back on negotiations with Ukraine – never. It is, in fact, our counterparts in these discussions who have chosen to withdraw. The Europeans terminated contacts with Russia, and the Ukrainian side has self-imposed a ban on negotiations, withdrawing from the Istanbul process and publicly announcing that. Well, we are not imposing anything on anyone. We are prepared – I have already stated this a hundred times: if they so desire, let them conduct these negotiations, and we will be ready to return to the negotiating table.

Regarding Euro-Atlantic relations, we do not interfere here. We do not engage in conjecture about the various issues that emerge between the United States and its allies. But if we speak of these allies, they themselves must shoulder the responsibility for what is happening now.

Mr Trump was once accused of having a special relationship with Russia, and that Russia meddled in the election process when he won the first time. They put together a team, dragged him through courts, and even created a special congressional commission. They found nothing, because there was nothing to find, and none of what they alleged ever happened.

What did we witness during this election campaign? All European leaders without exception directly interfered in the US electoral process. It came to the point where they directly insulted one of the candidates. It was clear whose side we were on, but we never interfered and certainly did not make any strong statements or rude remarks with regard to candidates. We just did not do it, while the Europeans did.

Frankly, I am surprised to see the newly elected US President act with such restraint with regard to his allies who behaved in such an ugly, to put it bluntly, manner. I mean, he is acting in quite a gentlemanly manner toward them.

But they are not shutting themselves off. Speaking of the Ukraine settlement, the United States is working with its European allies. Mr Kellogg, as far as I know, is in Kiev now, correct? Before that, he met with the Europeans. Now, the President of France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain are planning trips to Washington. Nothing is shut off there. The Americans are discussing these issues with them.

We, for example, have the renewal of START-3 on the table. People may have forgotten, but this treaty will expire exactly one year from now in February 2026. Do they really want to sit at the negotiating table and mediate between Russia and the United States? Probably, not. But why throw tantrums? That is totally uncalled for.

With regard to the negotiating process, President Trump told me during the telephone call – and I can confirm this – that the United States is operating on the premise that the negotiating process will include both Russia and Ukraine. No one is excluding Ukraine from this process.

So, there are no grounds for this kind of reaction to the Russia-US meeting.

Question: Apparently, [US Secretary of State] Rubio promised to keep their European allies informed.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we are aware of that. On our part, we will certainly inform our friends from BRICS. We know about their interest in settling Russia-Ukraine relations, addressing this crisis, and ceasing hostilities. We respect their proposals, and I have stated this many times. We will inform them about the results of the Russia-US talks very shortly.

Question: When are you going to meet with Mr Putin… Sorry, Mr Trump?

Vladimir Putin: I meet with him [Putin] every day when I look in the mirror. (Laughter.)

You know, this meeting should be properly prepared. I would be happy to meet with Donald. We have not seen each other for a long time. We do not have a particularly close relationship, but in the previous years, during his first presidential term, we met and had very smooth discussions about our bilateral relations. I would gladly meet with him again. I believe he feels the same way – it was evident from the tone of our telephone conversation.

But we are in a situation where it would not be enough to meet – to just have a cup of tea or coffee and talk about the future. We must make sure that our teams prepare discussion points that are crucial for both the United States and Russia, including, but not limited to, the Ukrainian track, in order to reach decisions that both parties would find acceptable. This is not an easy task, of course.

I have already mentioned that. When Mr Trump was running for US president, he spoke about settling the Ukrainian crisis in a relatively short time. As President-elect, he began receiving information from intelligence services and other sources, which led him to change his view, and he admitted that it would take six months.

We are not going to discuss timelines right now, and that is absolutely natural, by the way, there is nothing unusual about it. He simply started receiving objective information that changed his approach. Therefore, it will take some time. I am not ready to say how much time, but we are ready to hold a meeting – and I would like to have this meeting. But, again, preparations are necessary if we want to see results.

Of course, as I said, we have many areas of cooperation. These include strategic stability, broader issues of the Middle East, and economic cooperation, primarily in energy.

You know, I still remember a trilateral telephone conversation among your humble servant, US President Trump and the King of Saudi Arabia. The three of us spoke on the phone and discussed the global energy market. A discussion of these issues in this format is still necessary today.

Speaking of which, I would like to sincerely thank the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the King and the Crown Prince, for graciously providing a platform in Riyadh for high-level meetings between Russia and the United States, and for creating a very friendly atmosphere.

I believe that in a few days – today it is not possible as I am on a working trip in St Petersburg – I will certainly call the Crown Prince and thank him personally for his assistance.

Question: May I ask how the special military operation is progressing? It continues despite ongoing negotiations. What updates do you have from the front lines?

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, our well-informed and courageous war correspondents, your colleagues, are heroically fulfilling their mission, performing their civic and professional duty. They provide objective updates to the Russian and global public regarding developments along the line of engagement.

I received an update just an hour ago, informing me that last night, personnel of the 810th Brigade have crossed the border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, entering enemy territory. Our troops are making advances along the entire line of engagement.

Question: Drones have attacked an oil station in the Krasnodar Territory. Does this event reflect Zelensky’s reaction to the improving relations between Russia and the United States and the ongoing process?

Vladimir Putin: I cannot say for certain, and it is difficult for me to assess what has happened, but we must try to explain it. Many questions arise, and it is very difficult to answer them at this time.

First, what I say may seem unexpected: such attacks are impossible without space reconnaissance. Ukraine receives highly accurate reconnaissance data on specific targets from its Western allies. I do not know who provided the information and satellite images of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium facilities, but I can confidently say that the Ukrainian Armed Forces cannot achieve this independently; they lack the necessary satellite capabilities. This is the first point.

Second, this facility did not have any Russian air defence systems, and none are currently deployed there. This is understandable: we believed this facility would not be attacked because, technically, it is not a Russian facility; it is part of the international energy infrastructure. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium is owned by US companies, I believe it is Chevron, European companies, including ENI, and Russian companies, such as LUKOIL.

We hardly get any money from this transit – figuratively speaking, just a few pennies. It holds no economic significance for us. We simply provide a service to our Kazakhstani friends and partners operating in Kazakhstan. The oil being extracted falls under a production sharing agreement, which essentially means that it belongs to the companies extracting it, primarily American and European firms. While not a critical volume, it is still a notable quantity on global markets.

Naturally, the attack on such a facility – carried out using six drones – has already had, and will continue to have, an impact on global energy markets. The main reason for this is that, unfortunately, restoring the facility quickly is impossible because it primarily relies on Western equipment, which was damaged in the attack.

Incidentally, I was just informed that Europeans countries have extended their sanctions against Russia, specifically prohibiting the supply of Western oil and gas production equipment to us. What does this mean? It means that just two days after the Ukrainian Armed Forces carried out the attack, European leaders announced that repairing this facility would be impossible – because it mostly features European-made equipment, including components manufactured by the Germany company Siemens. Even if the necessary equipment were delivered tomorrow or the day after, repairs would still take 45 to 60 days. But now, the equipment will not be supplied at all.

Strictly speaking, this looks like coordinated action. But I do not want to believe that. I think this is just a coincidence. The Europeans are simply following their own path without paying attention to what is happening. However, when you put the pieces together, it does look coordinated.

Why would they do this? It is unclear. These actions only contribute to persistently high energy prices on global markets – something energy consumers, including European companies, are certainly not interested in.

By the way, the current US administration has repeatedly stated its goal of stabilising or even lowering energy prices. But such actions clearly work against the very objectives they claim to pursue.

As I understand, the consortium’s participants held a meeting yesterday to discuss the emerging challenges and determine their next steps. Once again, this is not so much our problem as it is an issue for foreign investors and stakeholders in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium.

By Gary Saul Morson, New York Review of Books, February 2025

Review of Paul Robinson’s Russian Liberalism.

“The Russian liberal,” wrote the nineteenth-century philosopher Pyotr Chaadayev, “is a thoughtless fly buzzing in the ray of the sun; that sun is the sun of the West.” From Chaadayev’s day to the present, Russians have regarded liberalism as an elitist, alien Western import, at odds with ordinary people’s basic values. Its two brief moments of influence—from the revolution of 1905 to the Bolshevik takeover in November 1917, and from Mikhail Gorbachev’s proclamation of perestroika and glasnost until the presidency of Vladimir Putin—ended in illiberal regimes and the discrediting of liberal ideas.

When Gorbachev assumed power in 1985, and especially after the USSR collapsed in 1991, it seemed as if Western liberalism would at last triumph. Political pluralism, human rights, and a decentralized economy became the order of the day even in Russia. Why, then, did everything change under President Putin? And why have Russians so thoroughly rejected liberal culture and politics? In the 2016 elections—fraudulent, to be sure—Russian liberals failed to elect a single delegate to the Duma. The historian Benjamin Nathans reports that Russian liberals routinely drink toasts to “the success of our hopeless cause.”

Something similar happened after the October Manifesto of 1905 transformed Russia into a constitutional monarchy. When the Romanov dynasty collapsed in March 1917, legal power passed to the Duma and its initially liberal leaders until the Bolsheviks seized control eight months later. By the end of 1917 the feared Cheka—the first version of the Soviet secret police—was in operation. Why was liberalism so incapable of preserving the power it inherited?

History is written not only by the winners but also about the winners and their principal opponents. When I studied Russian history in graduate school, the period from the Decembrist revolt of 1825 until the Bolshevik takeover was depicted as a struggle between the monarchists and the revolutionaries, with only the briefest mention of liberals. The central documents of Russian liberalism—the essay anthologies Problems of Idealism (1903) and Landmarks (1909)—escaped consideration. Yet there was a significant Russian liberal movement, whose importance extends beyond Russian history. For one thing, some Russian thinkers, especially from the 1890s to 1917, found new and perhaps useful ways to defend core liberal values. For another, the failures of Russian liberal movements may tell us why Western assumptions about liberalism’s universal appeal so often prove counterproductive.

The historian Pavel Miliukov, the leader of the liberal Kadet (Constitutional Democratic) party from its founding in 1905 until its ban by the Bolsheviks in 1917, embraced a liberalism that resembled its Western counterparts. Heavily influenced by English utilitarianism and Auguste Comte’s positivism, he presumed that just as the same physical laws prevail everywhere, so do the same historical laws. All societies are bound to develop liberal democratic institutions, an idea that again became familiar almost a century later in Francis Fukuyama’s meditations on “the end of history.” In his splendid new book on Russian liberalism, Paul Robinson cites Miliukov’s comment that “civilization makes nations, as it makes individuals, more alike.” The socialist Alexander Herzen, along with Russian radical populists, had maintained that Russia could forge a path of its own that avoided Western bourgeois society, but Miliukov, along with many Marxists, insisted that history allows only one path: Russia had to obey “the laws of political biology.” The forms of civilized political life, Miliukov famously explained, “are as little national as are the use of the alphabet or the printing press, steam or electricity…. When a new era of history knocks at the door, it is useless to place restraints and delays in its path.”…

Read full article here.

YouTube link here.

By Arnaud Bertrand, Twitter, 2/15/25

This is beyond insane: Keith Kellog, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, confirms that Europe will NOT have a seat at the table in the negotiations to end the war.

When asked at the Munich Security Conference “Can you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the table and Europeans will be at the table?”, his response was: “the answer to that last question is no.” By “last question”, he meant whether Europeans will be at the table.

Later on in the conversation, he was asked to confirm this: “So the Europeans […] you don’t think should be at the table directly?”. His answer again was “I’m from the school of realism, I think that’s not going to happen”, and that he understood hearing this might be “like fingers on a chalkboard, may grate a little bit but I’m telling you something that’s really quite honest.”

He was very clear though that he still expected Europeans to provide security guarantees and abide by the deal: “you have to understand, when you sign up for these security guarantees, that is an obligation and the reason I say that and I challenge many people that are out there, right now, 2014 Wales declaration, all the NATO allies, 2% of GDP, 20% of that was modernization, there are still 8 nations who’ve not even gotten to that number, okay? So when we get to it make sure you check your 6 as they say that the obligation is upon YOU when WE make these commitments.”

So to sum up, the US position is that Europe should stay out of negotiations that will fundamentally affect their security architecture – yet bear the primary responsibility and cost for the negotiations’ outcome.

And on top of that, it’s quite clear from previous Trump declarations (like here: https://nypost.com/2025/02/10/us-news/trump-says-ukraine-has-essentially-agreed-to-allow-the-us-access-to-500b-in-rare-earth-minerals/) that the U.S. will be looking in the deal to take control of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as payment for the military aid it has provided, leaving presumably nothing to Europe.

I’ve repeatedly warned that Europe was fast walking towards its own century of humiliation if it continued on its current path. I think it’s now pretty damn clear that we’re very much there already.

If this goes through, this would possibly be unprecedented in European history – never before, to my knowledge, has Europe’s security architecture been redrawn without any European power at the table. Even during Europe’s darkest moments – including the Mongol invasions, the Ottoman expansions, or the Yalta Conference – European powers always had some voice in negotiations affecting their future.

To be clear, the primary culprit here isn’t the U.S. or Trump: any student of history knows that we live in a deeply unfair world where, as ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote 2,500 years ago, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” As such the blame lies almost entirely on us Europeans, or more precisely on our immensely incompetent leaders. And I want to stress this last point: they are literally incompetent on a millennia scale, given that they’ve managed to reduce Europe to a position that lacks any historical parallel, where it’s expected to simply accept and implement whatever security arrangements others decide for it.

Trump himself does what’s best for the U.S. – “America first”, remember? – and to be fair to him the Biden administration left him with a pretty bad hand. It’s crystal clear that Russia won in Ukraine, despite all of NATO’s efforts, and as such the U.S. very much risked coming out of it looking like the loser that it objectively is.

Faced with this, Trump’s strategy clearly is to reframe this defeat into an “art of the deal” victory by securing U.S. access to Ukraine’s natural resources while offloading the costs and responsibilities of the post-war security arrangement onto Europe. Meanwhile Europe, which has failed to develop any meaningful strategic autonomy over the past decades (in fact it’s moved in the opposite direction), finds itself with little leverage to prevent this.

In fact, European “leaders”, in their treasonous meekness, are already signaling that they’ll resign themselves to their fate. Mark Rutte, NATO’s Secretary General, for instance enticed Europeans not to complain about the situation (“to my European friends, I would say, get into the debate, not by complaining that you might, yes or no, be at the table, but by coming up with concrete proposals, ideas, ramp up (defense) spending”, https://voanews.com/a/europe-will-not-be-part-of-ukraine-peace-talks-us-envoy-says-/7976497.html).

And Keir Starmer, invited by Macron at a “crisis summit” in Paris to discuss the situation, said that his primary goal in the meeting would be “to ensure we keep the US and Europe together. We cannot allow any divisions in the alliance to distract from the external enemies we face.” (https://theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/15/europe-will-not-take-part-in-us-russia-talks-ukraine-kellogg).

I let you appreciate the perfect illustration this provides of the very mindset that has led Europe to this unprecedented position of weakness – responding to diplomatic humiliation with calls for even more subservience.

So what could Europe do? After all, it is true that they have very little leverage, mainly due to the fact that they are “protected” by the very power that decided to put them on the menu instead of at the table.

One idea could be to out-Trump Trump, and to angle for a deal where the U.S., not Europe, ends up the loser. They could for instance finally tell the truth about what led to the war in the first place, namely NATO expansion pushed by the U.S., as well as the U.S.-led coup in Ukraine in 2014, and dissociate themselves from this, just the way Trump is very conveniently trying to dissociate himself from his own country’s previous policies.

They could make it clear that they reject any deal that gives the U.S. access to any of Ukraine’s resources, and signal to Russia that they’re open to a different kind of security architecture in Europe – one that doesn’t rely on U.S. leadership or NATO. After all, if Trump can say he’ll make deals with Putin, why couldn’t Europe do the same?

They could also reach out to China, which has already made it very clear that it opposed a deal in Ukraine without Europe at the table (https://reuters.com/world/china-calls-all-stakeholders-ukraine-war-be-peace-process-2025-02-15/) and which is anyhow much better positioned to negotiate with Russia than Trump is.

We could end up with a Europe freed from American tutelage for the first time since 1945, establishing a new multipolar equilibrium with China and Russia – turning Trump’s attempt to exclude Europe into the very catalyst that finally enables European strategic autonomy.

But this would require a level of strategic thinking that current European leaders have consistently shown themselves incapable of. Instead I’m afraid they’ll continue their current path of attempting to maintain the façade of transatlantic unity even as they’re being openly humiliated.

By Anatol Lieven, Responsible Statecraft, 2/18/25

European summits are not usually the stuff of poetry, but the latest one in Paris was worthy of Horace: Patrturiunt montes; nascetur ridiculus mus — “Mountains will be in labour; and give birth to a ridiculous mouse.”

President Macron of France called the summit in response to what he called the “electroshock” of the Trump administration’s election and plans to negotiate Ukraine peace without the Europeans. The result so far however appears to have been even less than a mouse — in fact, precisely nothing.

Macron presumably hoped that the leaders of the other major European states would rally behind his own proposal of French and European peacekeeping troops for Ukraine (an idea already categorically rejected by Moscow). Keir Starmer of the UK did indeed make such an offer, only shortly afterwards to say that no European guarantee of Ukrainian security would be credible without what he called a US “backstop.”

Since Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had already publicly ruled out any such U.S. guarantee, Starmer thereby implicitly admitted that his offer of British troops was empty. British parliamentarians have also demanded a vote on the dispatch of British troops. In the meantime, on leaving the Paris meeting, Chancellor Olaf Scholtz of Germany said that a discussion of European troops for Ukraine is “completely premature” and “highly inappropriate” while the war is ongoing. Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland (one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters) ruled out Polish troops altogether:

“We do not plan to send Polish soldiers to the territory of Ukraine. We will … give logistical and political support to the countries that will possibly want to provide such guarantees in the future, such physical guarantees.”

Macron has also emphasized something that makes much more sense: namely that the Europeans need to build up not only their own armed forces, but also the military industries that supply them. In an interview with the Financial Times, he said that:

“We must also develop a fully integrated European defense, industrial and technological base. This goes far beyond a simple debate about spending figures. If all we do is become bigger clients of the US, then in 20 years, we still won’t have solved the question of European sovereignty.”

This is indeed extremely necessary — though it is clear that Trump expects that higher European military spending will be spent on U.S. weaponry, and is prepared to bring pressure to bear to make sure this is the case. But Macron’s interview also brought out the acute difficulty of such European integration. He urged European countries to buy the SAMP-T air defense system, which he said is better than the U.S. Patriot missiles system that several countries are presently using.

For all I know, he may be right about that; but it is surely no coincidence that the SAMP-T is made in France and Italy. The real proof of Macron’s commitment to the integration of European military industries would be if — for example — he agrees to give up production of France’s Leclerc main battle tank in favor of buying Germany’s Leopard tanks for the French army.

The UK exemplifies this problem. With one of the very few professional fighting armies in Europe, it is critical to any independent European defense. But while it has excellent soldiers, its weapons systems have been plagued with breakdowns and deficiencies, largely because the wider British industrial base is now too limited to support an efficient military sector. On the other hand, precisely because British industries have shrunk so far, military industry is critical to maintaining what is left of British technological expertise. Give this up to the Germans? Really?

The kind of radical increases in military spending being demanded by the Trump administration and advocated by Macron and Starmer will also require some combination of increased taxes and savage cuts to social welfare, health and infrastructure budgets, at a time when these are already under intense pressure from economic stagnation, and as a result the discontent of ordinary people is rising steeply.