Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

The White House says that US President Trump and Russian President Putin have been speaking (by video connection) for two hours, as Trump tries to convince Putin to accept a ceasefire in the Ukraine war.

---

The phone call has ended and President Trump is expected to issue a statement soon.

---

My reading of this is that they agreed to a ceasefire in multiple stages -

A. What may or may not be an immediate "energy and infrastructure" ceasefire.

B. Then negotiations in the Middle East to begin immediately, to address

1. First, a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea.

2. Second, a general ceasefire, which presumably include all land and air fighting.

3. And third, negotiations towards a lasting peace.

They also discussed nuclear proliferation in the Middle East with what appears to be particular emphasis on Iran: "Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel".

And both Presidents address the tremendous upside of better US-Russia relations including "enormous economic deals" (Russia has huge natural resources) and geopolitical stability.

Bottom line: While I'm disappointed that they didn't announce an immediate general ceasefire, it sounds very positive.

They were only proposing an initial 30 day ceasefire, after all. So launching right into proposals for a longer-term ceasefire, even if it comes in multiple stages, might arguably be a step in the right direction.

Plus positive remarks on Iran, on mutually advantageous trade deals, and on backing away from the threat of US/Russia war.

Europe might not like it. Neither will the American (and Russian?) war-hawks. So expect it to be trashed in European capitals and in the establishment media.

Yep, more of the "Putin's puppet" is incoming. 9_9

Extraordinarily good examination by a researcher at the German army's military academy of the prospects of European NATO minus the United States if it had to fight Russia as Ukraine is currently doing.

https://wavellroom.com/2025/03/19/what-i...americans/

Excerpts:

"Without U.S. stockpiles and equipment depots, Europe would face an immediate logistical challenge from the very outbreak of hostilities.  Ammunition shortages would be catastrophic.  The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that European stockpiles cannot sustain modern, high-intensity combat.  Stocks of artillery shells, precision munitions, and armoured vehicle replacements would be exhausted within weeks, with no immediate means of replenishment...

...To make matters worse, Europe lacks the military mobility to move what it currently has to where it is needed.  Equipment losses would mount rapidly without a resilient battlefield repair and maintenance infrastructure...

...When its reserves run out and production fails to keep pace, Europe will be unable to effectively shape the strategic environment. Yet, such shaping operations – preparing the battlefield to favour one’s own forces – are essential for modern warfare. They involve neutralizing enemy air defences, disrupting command-and-control networks, and degrading logistics and reinforcements. These operations set the conditions for manoeuvre warfare, allowing ground forces to exploit gaps and achieve operational breakthroughs. Without American air assets and stand-off capabilities, Europe would struggle to achieve air dominance or degrade enemy systems sufficiently to enable rapid and decisive ground manoeuvres.

The inability to gain and maintain control of the air would be felt long before European troops even reached the frontlines. Russian ISR drones would detect and track their movements, enabling relentless strikes that would force European units to disperse, dig in, and hide. ...Frontlines would harden, forcing tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to disperse even further – acting as individual force multipliers rather than combined instruments of manoeuvre...

...With European forces unable to shape the battlefield, to mass for decisive action and to effectively suppress and outmanoeuvre the enemy, the result would be a war of attrition, much like what we see in Ukraine today...

...Ukraine has fought with dispersed positions, drone teams, and small-unit tactics – not because they are optimal, but because they are the only available option...

...The failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive revealed the harsh limits of attacking without air dominance, without deep strikes, and without shaping operations – precisely the situation European forces would face if they had to fight Russia alone...

...Furthermore, while Ukrainians have shown enormous resilience, driven by a fight for national survival, it is hard to imagine similar determination across Western Europe. Few European nations beyond the Baltic countries and Poland have the resolve to endure the kind of high-casualty warfare that would likely follow if Europe had to go to war today. Public support for any conflict involving mass casualties and prolonged attritional warfare would likely collapse....

Ceasefire was posed by Russia to last 30 hours. until midnight Easter Sunday.

The problem is that Putin pulled the ceasefire without any international recognition (as a true ceasefire should have peacekeeping troops observing that the ceasefire is brokered properly) to last a very short period of time. (Too short to actually get peacekeeping troops to be deployed)

It implies Putin wants to be seen brokering peace to his home crowd, but doesn't want to do a proper job of it since he doesn't want the international community sitting on his doorstep observing his moves. The Ceasefire in this instance was doomed to fail.

The durability of ceasefire agreements is affected by several factors, such as demilitarized zones, withdrawal of troops and third-party guarantees and monitoring (e.g. peacekeeping). Ceasefire agreements are more likely to be durable when they reduce incentives to attack, reduce uncertainty about the adversary's intentions, and when mechanisms are put in place to prevent accidents from spiraling into conflict. - wiki

There's no need to guarantee the durability of such a short-lived ceasefire. Not to mention moving peacekeeping troops for a mere 30-hour ceasefire would not be worth the cost. You'd be more likely to end up with the peacekeepers in the line of fire when fighting resumes. If intentional, that would sound like a NATO conflict trap.

Assuming Putin isn't pulling any punches .. we're seeing the best the Russian army can do in conventional (non-nuclear) warfare. How much more resources would it take to turn Russia's slow advance into a slow retreat? The answer to the question - "Could Europe defend itself from attack by Russia?" is already being played out. Unless Putin has another army waiting in the wings the fear of attack by 'another army' is groundless. If 'Europe' treated the invasion of Ukraine as THE attack on Europe I suspect Putin's army could be driven back even without a lot of help from America.

The operative phrase being "conventional warfare." If NATO countries join in earnest, do you think Putin would just withdraw his troops and lick his wounds?
Or would that be proof of the very provocation he claims motivated the Ukraine invasion? If the latter, how far do you trust Putin to be restrained in any possible preemptive strike?

I expect Putin would act like a cornered animal if NATO country troops surged into Ukraine.