STORY: Trump and Putin Speak for 90 Minutes on U.S. Independence Day

An Emphasis on a “Political and Diplomatic Resolution”

The Russian Foreign Ministry emphasized that Vladimir Putin had stressed, during the call, the importance of a “political and diplomatic resolution” to the conflict—a phrase that, coming from the Kremlin, has historically been used to buy time rather than to signal a genuine willingness to make territorial concessions.

Russian diplomats also claimed that “Kyiv and its European backers are counting on the conflict to drag on, or even escalate”—a classic accusation that shifts the blame for the continuation of the war onto the victims of the invasion rather than the aggressor itself.

Putin Describes a Military Situation Favorable to Russia

According to the Russian account of the call, Vladimir Putin reportedly “outlined the reality of the situation on the battlefield,” asserting that Russian armed forces were advancing “with confidence”—a claim that aligns with the Kremlin’s usual line of military communication, which is regularly challenged by independent Western assessments.

I refuse to take this claim of confident progress by Russian troops at face value. The Kremlin has never acknowledged a military defeat since the start of this war, even when the facts on the ground clearly indicated the opposite.

Moscow Claims a Capture Disputed by Kyiv

At the time of this report, Russia was claiming to have captured Kostiantynivka, a strategic town in the Donetsk region—a claim immediately rejected by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who called the announcement “yet another Russian lie” in a public statement.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a military analysis center known for its rigorous monitoring of the front lines, deemed these Russian claims exaggerated—an assessment that adds to a long list of Russian victory declarations that do not hold up to scrutiny of verifiable on-the-ground data.

A War of Narratives Unfolding Alongside the Actual War

This discrepancy over the fate of Kostiantynivka illustrates a recurring pattern since the start of the conflict: Moscow announces territorial victories that independent analysts then struggle to confirm based on publicly available satellite imagery and field reports.

I believe this Russian habit of announcing victories before they are confirmed serves a specific purpose: to influence Ukrainian morale and international perception even before the reality on the ground catches up with the propaganda. It is an information war being waged alongside the trenches.

A “very good call,” according to the Ukrainian president

Shortly before the call between Trump and Putin, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself had a separate phone conversation with Donald Trump, described as a “very good call” by the Ukrainian leader, who stated that there was “a real prospect of ending this war.”

This sequence of two separate calls—one with Kyiv, the other with Moscow—illustrates the balancing act Washington is attempting to maintain between its obligations to an ally under attack and its stated desire to negotiate directly with the aggressor to hasten a resolution to the crisis.

A meeting scheduled in Ankara in the coming days

Donald Trump was scheduled to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky in person the following Wednesday, on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara—a meeting presented as an opportunity to clarify U.S. intentions directly with the Ukrainian leader following this series of two phone calls.

I see this parallel handling of the two calls as a diplomatic tightrope walk that may work in the short term but risks, in the long run, blurring the message sent to Moscow regarding the true strength of U.S. support for Ukraine.

A Meeting with High Stakes for the Alliance’s Future

The NATO summit scheduled for July 7 and 8 in Ankara was set to bring together all the leaders of the Atlantic Alliance to discuss, among other things, the sharing of the defense burden among allies—an issue on which Donald Trump has consistently pressed in recent months to secure greater financial commitments from European partners.

This summit also marked the first meeting between Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in several months, as well as a meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, illustrating the busy diplomatic agenda surrounding this call with Putin.

U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Europe: An Ambiguous Signal

In parallel with these discussions, Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon to reduce the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe—a decision that, combined with his repeated calls with Putin, is fueling concerns among some European allies about the consistency of the U.S. commitment to the continent’s security.

I view this troop withdrawal as the most troubling signal in this diplomatic sequence. One cannot simultaneously negotiate firmly with Moscow and reduce one’s military presence in Europe without sending a message of weakness to the Kremlin.

Thirty Killed in a Massive Strike on the Capital

This diplomatic appeal came amid ongoing violence: the previous Thursday, Russia had carried out intense airstrikes on Kyiv, killing at least thirty people according to Ukrainian authorities—one of the deadliest attacks on the capital in several months.

Other Ukrainian cities, including Kharkiv, Sumy, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, and Cherkasy, were also targeted by these strikes, confirming that the diplomatic talks between Washington and Moscow did not result in any pause in Russian military operations against Ukrainian civilians.

The Unbearable Contrast Between Words and Deeds

This contrast between a call described as “constructive” by Moscow and the deadly strikes on Ukrainian civilian areas—which occurred just days before this exchange—illustrates the persistent gap between the diplomatic language used and the brutal reality experienced by the Ukrainian people.

I cannot describe this call as “constructive” without mentioning, in the same sentence, the thirty people killed in Kyiv. This juxtaposition is not arbitrary: it serves as a reminder that armchair diplomacy never brings the war on the ground to a halt.

An issue that goes beyond the Ukrainian context

According to reports in the Irish Times, the situation in Iran was also among the topics discussed during this call between Trump and Putin, confirming that the two leaders are now discussing a broad geopolitical agenda that extends beyond the conflict in Ukraine alone.

This broader scope of the conversation illustrates how Vladimir Putin is seeking to position himself as a key player in several crisis issues simultaneously, thereby strengthening his international stature despite being a leader subject to massive Western sanctions.

A Risk of Bargaining Across Distinct Issues

Analysts fear that this intertwining of distinct geopolitical issues could lead to cross-concessions, where progress on the Iranian issue would be achieved at the cost of compromises on the Ukrainian issue—a bargaining dynamic that Kyiv could only observe without participating directly.

I am concerned about this merging of issues. Reducing Ukraine to a bargaining chip in broader negotiations with Russia would be a silent betrayal of the fundamental principle that borders are not redrawn under military coercion.

A “friendly and frank” tone that has been used before

The July 4 call was not the first notable exchange between the two leaders this year: a previous call, which took place on Donald Trump’s 80th birthday, had already been described as “friendly and frank” by both sides—language that is repeated from one call to the next without translating into concrete, verifiable progress on the ground.

This repetition of warm descriptions, call after call, without any lasting ceasefire emerging, raises questions about the true nature of this personal relationship between the two men: does it truly serve the cause of peace, or does it primarily serve to maintain the image of ongoing dialogue without any obligation to produce concrete results?

Kremlin Spokesperson Denies Any U.S. Inconsistency

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov subsequently confirmed that “Presidents Putin and Trump have agreed that their contacts will continue in the near future,” while firmly denying any accusation of inconsistency in the U.S. position toward Russia.

I note that Peskov is careful to defend Trump against accusations of inconsistency—a reflex that speaks volumes about the Kremlin’s interest in preserving this personal relationship, regardless of the actual twists and turns of U.S. policy.

Buying Time Through the Diplomacy of Ongoing Dialogue

For many analysts of the conflict, this series of cordial phone calls between Trump and Putin primarily serves Russia’s strategy of buying time, maintaining the illusion of an active diplomatic process while Russian military operations continue without significant interruption on Ukrainian soil.

A U.S. official himself acknowledged that “the battlefield has clearly stagnated in recent months,” an observation that, far from being reassuring, underscores the lack of tangible diplomatic progress despite the increasing frequency of phone calls between the two capitals.

A Position of Strength Assumed by Moscow

This strategy of prolonged dialogue without any real territorial concessions allows Vladimir Putin to present himself as open to compromise in the eyes of the international community, while simultaneously consolidating his current military positions—a combination that doubly serves the Kremlin’s interests in the long run.

I believe Putin has understood something the West is slow to admit: every “constructive” call without concrete results works in his favor, because it wears down Western patience faster than it wears down his own troops on the ground.

Persistent Concerns About Europe’s Exclusion

Several European capitals are watching this dynamic of direct exchanges between Washington and Moscow with growing concern, fearing they will be gradually sidelined in negotiations that directly affect the security of the entire European continent.

This fear of exclusion is fueling increasingly urgent calls for strengthened transatlantic coordination to ensure that any negotiations on Ukraine’s future fully include European voices—and not just those of Washington and Moscow.

The Ankara Summit as an Opportunity for Clarification

The NATO summit in Ankara, coming immediately after this appeal, thus represented a crucial opportunity for European allies to seek direct clarification from Donald Trump on the actual content of his discussions with Vladimir Putin and on his medium-term intentions.

I fully understand European concerns. A peace negotiated solely between Washington and Moscow, without the Ukrainian and European voices being fully respected, would be nothing more than a fragile armistice disguised as a diplomatic victory.

Witkoff and Kushner: The Next Step Toward Moscow

The possible upcoming visit to Moscow by U.S. special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner is the most concrete outcome of this phone call, foreshadowing an intensification of direct diplomatic channels between the two administrations in the weeks following the Ankara summit.

The choice of these two envoys—who are personally close to Donald Trump—over the State Department’s traditional diplomatic channels confirms the highly personalized nature of this Ukrainian diplomacy, which is being conducted directly from the White House.

A Still-Unclear Timeline for the Next Phase of Negotiations

No specific date has been announced for this potential visit to Moscow, leaving uncertainty about the actual pace of the next diplomatic steps—a cautious approach that could reflect either internal disagreements within the U.S. administration or a deliberate desire not to rush the timeline ahead of the NATO summit.

I will remain cautious about this announcement of a visit to Moscow until it actually takes place. This war has already seen too many promising diplomatic announcements fizzle out in the weeks that followed without leaving any tangible impact on the ground.

A Personal Style of Diplomacy That Redefines Conventions

This series of calls—between Trump and Putin on the one hand, and between Trump and Zelensky on the other—illustrates a form of diplomacy that is personalized to the extreme, in which direct telephone exchanges between heads of state are increasingly replacing the traditional institutional channels of international negotiation.

This trend carries real risks: the excessive personalization of negotiations can undermine diplomatic continuity in the event of political change, while also making it more difficult to independently verify the exact content of commitments made during these informal exchanges.

A Test of Credibility in the Coming Months

The true measure of the usefulness of this July 4 call will be judged in the coming weeks, based on whether or not concrete results are achieved at the NATO summit in Ankara and during the possible visit by U.S. envoys to Moscow.

I always judge leaders by their results, not by the length of their phone calls. Ninety minutes of conversation are worthless if they do not lead, in the weeks that follow, to any concrete steps toward ending the suffering of the Ukrainian people.

Beijing is monitoring developments in Russian-American relations

China, Russia’s major economic ally since the start of the invasion, is closely watching this phase of diplomatic rapprochement between Washington and Moscow, aware that a too-marked warming of Russian-American relations could, in the long run, alter the strategic balance on which Beijing has based part of its own foreign policy for several years.

Chinese strategists know that any lasting normalization between Putin and Trump could potentially further isolate Beijing on the international stage—a prospect that partly explains China’s caution in the face of this intense diplomatic back-and-forth between the two capitals.

A Strategic Triangle Under Constant Tension

This triangle formed by Washington, Moscow, and Beijing remains one of the most decisive factors in current global geopolitics, with every diplomatic move between any two of these capitals being closely scrutinized by the third, in a constant balancing act that extends far beyond the context of the Ukrainian conflict alone.

I believe the West often underestimates just how closely Beijing is following every call between Trump and Putin. A Russia that is less diplomatically isolated by the West would, paradoxically, be a Russia that is somewhat less dependent on China, and this calculation carries significant weight in Asian capitals.

A call that hasn’t changed anything on the ground—at least for now

This nearly 90-minute phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin—as symbolically significant as it may be given the date—has so far produced no verifiable change in the conduct of Russian military operations against Ukraine. Strikes on Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities continued both before and after this exchange, serving as a reminder that diplomatic rhetoric and acts of war continue to exist on parallel tracks.

Ankara: The Next Litmus Test

The NATO summit in Ankara, where Donald Trump was scheduled to meet with both Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other allied leaders, will offer an initial opportunity to determine whether this July 4 call heralds a genuine diplomatic shift or simply adds to the long list of cordial conversations that yield no concrete results for Ukrainians living under bombardment.

I conclude this account with the same vigilance with which I began it: I will judge this telephone diplomacy not by its duration or its displayed cordiality, but by whether or not the number of missiles falling on Ukrainian cities ceases in the weeks to come.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist