Phone conversation between Putin, Trump sparks significant attention

(MENAFN) Tuesday’s phone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump—their second publicly known discussion this year—has sparked significant attention. Lasting nearly two and a half hours, it became the longest recorded call between sitting U.S. and Russian leaders.

Their discussion centered on bilateral relations and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Key outcomes included a mutual agreement to pause strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, establish a ceasefire in the Black Sea, conduct a prisoner exchange, and create expert groups from both nations to advance peace efforts.

Both the Kremlin and the White House described the call as “very good” and highly productive. But do leading Russian experts share this perspective?

Kosachev highlighted that the most notable aspect of the conversation was its nature—an actual dialogue rather than two leaders delivering separate monologues. Unlike previous discussions that involved ultimatum-style demands, this exchange showed a willingness from both sides to achieve concrete results.

He contrasted this with Europe's approach, which he described as overly aggressive, often pressuring Russia to accept a ceasefire or risk being labeled anti-peace. In contrast, the Putin-Trump discussion focused on long-term solutions rather than superficial political gestures.

While no formal peace plan was unveiled, Russia demonstrated its commitment through practical actions, such as energy-related agreements and humanitarian measures. Kosachev criticized Kyiv’s ceasefire proposal as a mere public relations maneuver, emphasizing that Moscow chose to act rather than make empty promises.

He also noted that the call underscored the significance of Russia-U.S. relations beyond the Ukraine conflict. Small symbolic gestures, such as the idea of a joint hockey game, signal a broader effort to mend ties between the two nations.

Interestingly, Europe was largely absent from discussions following the call. According to Kosachev, this reflects an understanding that EU involvement could be more obstructive than helpful, given its current stance on the conflict.

Perhaps most importantly, the decision to form expert groups marks a tangible step forward. While leaders set the stage for diplomacy, specialists will now work out the finer details. Kosachev concluded that this development signals the true return of diplomatic engagement.

MENAFN20032025000045015687ID1109335916