UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (L) gave a highly public show of support for Volodymyr Zelenskyy (R) greeting the Ukrainian president on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street, walking towards him and immediately throwing his arm around him. Inside No. 10, Starmer told Zelenskyy he has “full backing across the United Kingdom.” London, March 1, 2025
The verbal shootout at the Oval Office last Friday brought out President Vladimir Zelensky’s fury that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are very close to a deal on Ukraine, while the conclave in Lancashire House in London on Sunday involving 18 European leaders messaged that Zelensky is in good company.
Connecting the dots, the incisive mind of Stephen Bryen, a leading expert on security, strategy and technology who previously held senior positions in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill, wrote on Substack: “Trump invited [French president] Macron and [UK prime minister] Starmer to Washington to brief them, which he apparently did. The French went away fairly unhappy, but Starmer seemed to be in general agreement. Starmer made a pitch to include Article 5 and NATO in any deal; Trump rejected that appeal. Putin, meanwhile, talked to [Chinese president] Xi by telephone and sent Sergei Shoigu (who heads Russia’s Security Council, something like the NSC) to Beijing to meet with Xi.
“Trump invited Zelensky. The cover for Zelensky’s appearance in Washington was the “Minerals Deal” which the two leaders were supposed to sign… The real reason for the Zelensky visit was to brief him on the Putin negotiations and to gain his support.”
In the event, Trump could neither brief Zelensky on the Ukraine deal nor sign the “Minerals Deal” because the Ukrainian president took great exception to any negotiations with Putin. He did this in public, to Trump’s face, and in front of the press. The result was there was no private meeting and Trump told Zelensky, “he would be welcomed back only when he was ready for peace.”
This is where things stand. The strategy session that Trump is due to take later today with his top advisors will signal what happens next. There is a strong likelihood that Trump may cut off arms deliveries and/or financial assistance to Ukraine.
Now that the Rubicon has been crossed, Trump is unlikely to change course on Russia — unless, of course, Zelensky falls in line in abject surrender, which seems unlikely too. Russians of course welcome his ouster.
It is highly unlikely that Trump will be cowed down by the temper tantrums of the EU or impressed by Britain’s grandstanding. Germany is without a government for the next several weeks; it weakens the Europeans’ punch.
Indeed, the back channel communication between Moscow and Washington has gained traction. Moscow assesses that Trump has the upper hand. This is reflected in the growing optimism in Putin’s remarks last Thursday while addressing the Board of the Federal Security Service (collegium of Russia’s top foreign intelligence officials.)
Putin began by saying that the world and the international situation are changing rapidly and “the first contacts with the new US administration inspire certain hopes.”
He said: “There is a reciprocal commitment [with Trump] to work to restore interstate relations and to gradually address the enormous amount of systemic and strategic problems in the global architecture which once provoked the crises in Ukraine and other regions… Importantly, our partners demonstrate pragmatism and a realistic vision of things, and have abandoned numerous stereotypes, the so-called rules, and messianic, ideological clichés of their predecessors.”
Putin estimated that conditions exist for a dialogue “on bringing a fundamental solution to Ukraine crisis,… a dialogue on creating a system that will truly ensure a balanced and mutual consideration of interests, an indivisible European and global security system for the long term, where the security of some countries cannot be ensured at the expense or to the detriment of the security of other countries, definitely not Russia.”
However, Putin also flagged that sections Western elites “are still committed to maintaining instability in the world, and these forces will try to disrupt or to compromise the newly resumed dialogue” and, hence it is vital that “every possibility offered by dialogue and special services to thwart such attempts” needs to be leveraged.
Indeed, the New York Times disclosed today that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia “as part of a larger re-evaluation of all operations against Russia.” Equally, reports have appeared that Putin has given similar instructions restraining the Russian agencies.
What lends enchantment to the view is that many of the US’ most sophisticated operations against Russia are run out of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, the storied intelligence agency that broke the Enigma codes in World War II. Suffice to say, the US seems to be cutting itself free from longstanding joint operations with Britain directed against Russia.
A Guardian newspaper report has separately corroborated the Times disclosure of a shift in the US policy. It added that the warming of US-Russia relations is apparent also in certain recent other incidents which indicate that the US is “no longer characterising Russia as a cybersecurity threat.”
The paper claimed that analysts in the super secret Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) of the United States spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity that they were “verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.”
Quite obviously, a crisis of confidence has arisen in the US-UK “special relationship” — or, to put it differently, the Trump administration is taking steps to sequester the Cisa from rogue operations.
There is a Cold War history of rogue operations by spy agencies. One of the most celebrated cases was the incident on 1st May, 1960 when an American U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers flying at an altitude of 80,000 feet was shot down over Soviet air space triggering a diplomatic crisis that caused the collapse of a summit conference in Paris between then US president Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev — and the sudden death of the two leaders’ closely nurtured dream of détente.
An analogical situation exists today. Both Washington and Moscow are conscious of it. The need for such a veil of secrecy around the high level dialogue between the Kremlin and the White House is self-evident. There are too many detractors in the collective West who won’t settle for anything short of a Russian defeat in Ukraine and would rather keep the war going.
In such a fraught scenario, on the Russian side, the Kremlin’s writ ultimately prevails despite whatever dissenting voices exist in the military-industrial complex or amongst super hawks with revenge mentality. But that is not the case in the US where remnants of the old regime still hold sensitive positions, as the Guardian report vividly brings out. In the final analysis, therefore, it may well turn out that — to quote Stephen Bryan — Trump “will let Ukraine collapse but may seek a deal with Putin on Ukraine once Zelensky is gone.”