Russia-Ukraine [Mark Galeotti · Trump-Putin] | NextFedChair

Market Galeotti: Analysis of Potential Trump-Putin Summit

The Russia-Ukraine war comes to the forefront of Western media coverage when Ukrainian frontline troops are in trouble. The following update is based on Mark Galeotti's assessment of a probable Trump-Putin meeting scheduled to take place next week.

Executive Summary

The prospect of a summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is increasingly seen as “inevitable,” with possible venues including Riyadh, UAE, or Istanbul. While outcomes remain uncertain—largely due to Trump’s unpredictability—statements from Putin’s adviser Yuri Ushakov suggest the US has proposed a ceasefire deal acceptable to Russia. The summit will be a bilateral US-Russian meeting, excluding Europe and Ukraine, complicating legitimacy and implementation. A trilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky appears unlikely. The deal resembles a previously rejected offer by Putin but may reflect shifting Russian calculations due to mounting economic and political costs. Optimism remains low, with expectations centered on a limited ceasefire allowing Trump to claim a diplomatic win. Whether this signals a substantive shift will become clearer in the coming weeks.

The “Inevitable” Summit

As of August 7th, the prospect of a summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin appears “inevitable,” with suggestions for its location ranging from Riyadh, United Arab Emirates, to Istanbul. While the ultimate outcome remains uncertain due to the unpredictable nature of Donald Trump, insights from limited information, particularly from Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign policy adviser, offer crucial clues into the ongoing diplomatic landscape.

Putin's Top Adviser

Yuri Ushakov, often described as Putin's presidential aide or adviser, is a significant figure whose statements carry weight in diplomatic circles, largely because he is not prone to speaking “off the cuff” and stands as an “antithesis” to the Trump team’s communication style. Ushakov has indicated that the United States has put forward a proposal that the Russians deem “acceptable as the basis for some kind of arrangements.” Initially perceived as a mere proposal for talks, it now appears to be “something more”—specifically, a “ceasefire deal of some kind.”

Proposed Ceasefire Framework

The core elements, as inferred from Ushakov’s remarks, appear to be:

• A full ceasefire, including suspension of air strikes and other hostilities.
• De facto Russian control over currently occupied Ukrainian territories, implying official recognition or acceptance of these territorial changes.
• Partial or full lifting of certain US sanctions against Russia, contingent upon adherence to the ceasefire.

Notably, this framework does not address critical issues such as Ukraine’s NATO membership or sovereignty claims, which remain unresolved. While many NATO members are reportedly hesitant to admit Ukraine, this pragmatic reality may not align with Kremlin’s strategic expectations or rhetoric.

Strategic Messaging and Pre-Summit Dynamics

Ushakov’s statements should be viewed as part of standard pre-summit messaging, which serves to shape expectations. Unlike typical diplomatic summits preceded by prolonged negotiation and detailed preparations, this summit appears ad hoc and expedited, characteristic of Trump’s impulsive diplomatic style. The messaging may serve dual purposes:

• Depress expectations to ensure any outcome can be presented as a success.
• Alternatively, inflate expectations to politically bind the US to concessions ahead of the summit.
  
  

Summit Participants and Limitations

A key characteristic of the anticipated summit is its exclusive focus: it will be a “US-Russian summit,” notably excluding “Europe” and “Ukraine.” While Trump will speak on behalf of the United States, he cannot “actually lock Ukraine or indeed Europe into whatever he agrees,” despite potentially believing he can. This creates a significant “pressure point” where European nations might face a choice: either reject any agreement reached or feel compelled to follow along. This inherent complexity is a primary reason why many did not wish for a Trump-Putin summit to occur.

Prospects of a Trump-Putin-Zelensky Meeting

The idea, floated by Trump, of a subsequent Trump-Putin-Zelensky meeting is considered “pretty unlikely.” Russia has attempted to delegitimize Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by claiming his presidential term has expired, a narrative dismissed as “nonsense,” given that new elections cannot be held under martial law in Ukraine. More critically, Putin is highly unlikely to risk a meeting with Zelensky where he might be “berated” and fail to secure his desired deal. Putin would only agree to such a trilateral meeting if he felt “absolutely rock solid” that the deal he seeks is “guaranteed” to be accepted by Zelensky. Given the current environment, it is difficult to believe that Zelensky “could or would accept whatever Putin regards as acceptable terms.”

Historical Parallel and Putin’s Calculus

The proposed deal bears resemblance to a previously rejected offer made by Trump in early 2023, which included:

• Full US legal recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
• Acceptance of Russian control over other occupied territories.
• Full lifting of sanctions in exchange for cessation of hostilities.

Putin’s rejection at that time indicated expectations for a more advantageous deal. The current proposal, similar in nature but coming after heavy military and economic costs, may indicate a shift in Putin’s assessment of the war’s sustainability.

Internal Russian Considerations

Putin’s potential shift is not attributed to the threat of sanctions on Russian exports to the U.S., pressure from India and China regarding Russian oil purchases, or claims of U.S. nuclear submarine repositioning. It is not a sign of “Putin buckling to Trump's pressure.” Instead, if a shift is indeed occurring, it likely reflects Putin's growing realization of the “massive economic and thus potentially political costs” that the war will continue to incur, particularly if it extends for another year. This internal pressure might stem from “many technocrats within the system who clearly are not happy with the war” and may have subtly influenced his thinking.

Likely Outcomes

Overall, optimism for a significant breakthrough remains low. It’s entirely possible that the summit will yield only a “token thing,” such as a “temporary ceasefire on long-range air attacks on each other's cities and infrastructure,” and nothing more. Such an outcome would allow Trump to claim a victory (“I got something out of Putin when no one else does”) while also providing an exit strategy without appearing “ridiculous.”

Conclusion

Ultimately, if Ushakov’s statements are taken at face value, even with the understanding that they contain an element of spin, it suggests that “the Russians are beginning to wonder if they made a mistake when they turned down Trump’s earlier deal.” The coming weeks will reveal whether this potential shift in perception translates into a concrete diplomatic outcome.

NextFedChair

The odds of Governor Chris Waller becoming the next Fed Chair briefly surged to 48% on Polymarkets after a Bloomberg report cited a White House insider naming him the frontrunner to succeed Jerome Powell.

The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries was largely muted following the news. Okay, next please! Neel Kashkari is the last of our three initial candidates yet to receive attention.

The ideal candidate must project labor-market strength on cable news while pushing for at least a 200-basis-point Fed rate cut—without spooking the long end of the yield curve.

Meanwhile, the White House has nominated Stephen Miran—chair of the Council of Economic Advisers and author of the notorious Mar‑a‑Lago Accord white paper—as its mole… sorry, Governor—to fill the vacancy left by Adriana Kugler’s early exit.

They’ll fumble long enough to be forced into the bond vigilantes’ pick for Fed Chair. NY Fed President John Williams could be a smart long-shot bet here.