Trump suddenly turned his face, why does Putin still meet? and why not to meet in Russia?
According to central TV news reports, the House spokesman Peskov said: Previous invitations for meetings are still available. Putin is ready to meet Trump in Moscow. As for whether he will meet him in the end, the decision lies with the United States.
Interestingly, just five days ago, on September 23, Trump publicly turned against Russia.
He made harsh remarks directly on social media, saying that Russia was in "economic difficulties" due to the war and comparing others to "paper tigers."
He also encouraged Zelensky to take immediate action to regain all territory with the support of Europe and NATO, saying that NATO could shoot down Russian jets after they entered the country.
In just a few days, the attitude of the United States and Russia has been so different. This is by no means a simple diplomatic sentiment.
On the surface, the diplomatic posture changes back and forth, but in the bones, the two countries are playing a deep game around geographical interests and winning or losing on the battlefield, and every step is clearly calculated.
First of all, the first question, the US side has “turned the face”, why does Putin insist on meeting?
At the Anchorage meeting in August, when Trump and Putin spoke for more than two hours, while not talking about a Russian-Ukrainian ceasefire, Russia was really tasting the benefits of a “US-Russian direct conversation.”
At that meeting, the European countries did not touch the core discussion side, the EU in the conflict, the power of speech, at once weakened.
Now that Putin invites Trump to Moscow again, there is a high probability that he wants to use this trick to further break the Western diplomatic containment of Russia.
Moreover, we must see that after the Anchorage meeting, Russia's front line did not rest, but instead intensified its crackdown on Ukraine.
The recent Russian offensive in Donbass has made gradual progress.
Therefore, the Russian side is likely to want to take the advantage of the battlefield when negotiating.It is important to know that diplomatic negotiations are always based on strength, the battlefield is superior, and the bar on the negotiating table is hard.
As for Trump's "economic dilemma", peskov went back hard on September 24th. Russia is a "real bear", not a "paper tiger".
The latest data of the Federal Bureau of Statistics of the Russian Federation is also there, the GDP in the second quarter of this year has risen, although not so bright, but under Western long-term sanctions, can stabilize the macroeconomy, which became Putin's hard basis to refute the US side and prove its economic resilience.
Looking at the second question, why did Trump suddenly "turn his face"?
Just looking at his statement on September 23rd, it is easy to feel that he suddenly changed his strategy towards Russia.
But if you look back at the timeline, you will find that this is not the case.
Since July, his attitude towards Russia has gradually turned from ambiguous to hard.
Since July, the United States has restricted Russian energy exports on the grounds of "preventing sanctions evasion"; After the meeting in Anchorage in August, he said several times that he was "dissatisfied with the current situation in Russia and Ukraine"; Calling the "paper tiger" in September is just a step further to push the previous hard strategy.
This method of "extreme pressure" is exactly the same as his previous style of dealing with international affairs.
Domestic affairs in the United States cannot be ignored.
The mid-term elections in the United States are approaching, and conservative voters recognize "being hard on Russia".
Trump is now talking hard, not necessarily wanting to throw away the previous "Russian" blackjack, pleasing this part of the voters want to vote.
In addition, on September 23, he also specifically mentioned that "the United States will continue to provide weapons to NATO." Behind this, I am afraid there is also a "blow" to Europe.
In recent years, the United States has provided more aid to Ukraine, but on average, European countries are less than one-third of that of the United States.
Trump just wants Europe to understand that "we cannot always rely on the United States" and then spend more money to aid Ukraine.
As for why Putin emphasized that "the venue of the talks must be in Russia," this is actually a game between the two sides.
For Russia, Moscow is the home court and can firmly grasp the right to speak in the talks.
Putin has always said that "the solution to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has its roots", which includes the expansion of NATO to the east, in Moscow, can more directly convey this position to the U.S. side, without being bigger, like Anchorage, by the U.S. side with "show F-22 fighter aircraft".
But for Trump, this location is a "dilemma".
If he agrees to go, domestic opponents may scold him for "compromising with Russia", and European allies also doubt the "leadership" of the United States over NATO, which makes NATO even more divided.
But if it is rejected, the previous "hard words" will not become empty words, appear to be "foreign forces"? more importantly, he will miss out on the opportunity to talk directly with Russia and to benefit the United States.
In fact, this invitation was the end of the Anchorage Meeting.
During his meeting in Anchorage on August 15, Putin asked Trump in English to "go to Moscow next time"; Trump also said at that time,"This proposal is interesting" and "possible."
Now, five days after Trump "turned his face", Putin made another invitation, that is, put the "unfinished play" back on stage.
However, referring to the precedent of the Anchorage meeting, which was said to be "constructive" at the time, Russia and Ukraine fought even more fiercely after the meeting, so even if the United States and Russia did meet in Moscow this time, it would be difficult to cool down the conflict.
The battlefield between Russia and Ukraine is now more complicated than it was in August. Russia has an advantage in Donbas. US Vice President Vance recently stated that the United States is considering providing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.
These all make it even more difficult for the talks to reach consensus.
How Trump chooses next is directly related to the direction of Russia-Ukraine military aid.
If he refuses to invite, it is likely that he will provide more assistance to Ukraine, and even send "Tax" missiles to prove that he is "hard on Russia";
If he were to go to the deal, he would probably make a “limited ceasefire” with Russia, such as allowing Russia to halt its offensive in eastern Ukraine and relieve part of Russia’s energy cooperation with the United States.
But no matter what he chose in the end, it is very clear that the US-Russia "invitation pull", the core is always "interest priority".
Putin wants to break the Western containment and stabilize the battlefield advantage by meeting; Trump wants to get domestic votes by meeting and force Europe to pay more for aid to Ukraine.
Each step of the two sides is clearly defined around their own interests.
And the course of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, in this game of great powers, is more like a "attachment" that is taken away.