Lavrov vs. Rubio: Who’s Telling The Truth About The “Spirit Of Anchorage”?
Some understanding was clearly agreed to at Anchorage even though it wasn’t an “official” one, but Trump reneged on his commitments, so Rubio is playing dumb by denying that any agreement existed.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded to three high-level Russian officials’ claims that the US had reneged on the “Spirit of Anchorage”, which an RT contributor described as Trump coercing Zelensky into withdrawing from Donbass in exchange for Putin declaring a ceasefire, by denying that any deal existed. In his words, “There was a proposal in Alaska, but there was no agreement. If there had been an agreement, we would have had an end of the war.” His Russian counterpart feels differently.
According to Sergey Lavrov, he himself, Rubio, Trump and others were there when Putin read back each of Steve Witkoff’s proposals one by one, after which Putin expressed agreement with them once Witkoff confirmed that he understood them. Evidently, the Russian delegation believed that an understanding was reached whereby Trump was obligated to do something, but he never did. Given RT’s reliability, it was likely what they reported, which Trump failed to comply with for the reasons explained here.
His decision to “escalate to de-escalate” through an intense three-phase “war of attrition” against Russia centered on strengthening Ukraine’s strike capabilities, imposing more sanctions, and stirring unrest inside of Russia has to be accounted for somehow by his side in a “face-saving” way. Admitting that an arrangement was indeed agreed to, which Russia subsequently described as the “Spirit of Anchorage”, but then reneged upon by Trump would discredit him and complicate future negotiations with others.
For that reason, Rubio is ignoring that something was indeed agreed to in favor of focusing on the factual truth that no “official” agreement was reached, which is dishonest. After all, if no understanding was agreed to, then Trump 2.0 or even he himself personally would have immediately fact-checked Russia once it started talking about the “Spirit of Anchorage”. Thus, something was quite clearly agreed to, but Trump ultimately didn’t fulfill his obligation and that’s why Russia is disappointed with him.
What this means going forward is that Russian officials from Putin on down are unlikely to take him at his word anymore, especially now that he’s “escalating to de-escalate” with Russia, though they’ll still likely participate in bilateral talks with the US as well as US-mediated ones with Ukraine. That’s because the conflict will inevitably end at the negotiating table, even if it’s more of a formality than actual negotiations where each side is sincerely trying to reach a compromise with the other.
Accordingly, Russia is expected to continue pressing forward in pursuit of its minimum goal of obtaining full control over Donbass before agreeing to a ceasefire, while the US’ goal is for Ukraine to inflict as much damage upon Russia as possible before then. Trump 2.0’s grand strategic goal of coercing Russia into selling controlling stakes in its state natural resource companies as “security guarantees” against future Ukrainian strikes probably won’t happen unless in the worst-case scenario of Russia’s defeat.
For these reasons, observers can expect a worsening of Russian-US ties in the future, but everything will likely remain manageable. The best-case scenario is that Russia decisively wraps up the special operation before then, but that would require Putin “escalating to de-escalate” in his own right, and it’s unclear whether this consummate pragmatist is willing to risk an escalation spiral afterwards. Whatever he ultimately does will nevertheless be due to his sincere belief that it’s in Russia’s best interests.
Look at how the USA has been violating the "MOU" with Iran. Minsk, Istanbul, Anchorage...all deception tactics. Russia must learn from Iran with all the attacks on US bases in the gulf "kingdoms," and no nuclear response from the USA, only tic-tac strikes. My point, Russia has to strike hard on US bases somewhere in the region, otherwise Russia will be forced to defend itself with nukes as a last resort.
The war in Ukraine will never end decisively as long as a foreign power is involved in it. Even a Ukrainian state that acknowledges defeat and accepts a treaty with Russia will not stop the war if the USA or one of its European dominions does not adhere to it. Because then, we would be in a well-known 'Afghan' scenario.
The territories 'occupied' by Russia and Russia itself would be the target of acts of terrorism (resistance?), and a signatory Ukrainian government would be denounced as a puppet by all Western media. A shadow government in exile would receive all the honors, and acts of terrorism would be even harsher and deadlier in the unoccupied part of Ukraine. The repression-resistance-repression cycle would only radicalize Ukrainians. This all-too-familiar pattern would be unstoppable.
Securing the withdrawal from Donbas and leaving it at that would be a catastrophe for the Russians if the USA is not determined to police its own camp and prevent any sedition.
The crux of the problem is the US position, and even now, the European position, which seems to want to free itself from US power regarding its capacity for disruption.
The only thing that can fix everything is respect based on fear.
Rightly or wrongly, Westerners are no longer afraid of Russia. They still fear its potential but are now convinced of its lack of combativeness.
At this point, either Russia immediately cuts its losses and tucks its tail between its legs, heading back to the plantation [figuratively: backing down/submitting], or it seeks a trial of strength where it forces the West to bend. Or...
For 4 years, Putin has been nervously fiddling with the dice. He will have to decide to put them away or roll them.