Readers will have to forgive me for writing so much recently about Donald Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine. It only lurches from worse to worse for Ukrainians. Steve Witkoff, perhaps the key figure among US negotiators after Trump himself, recently gave an interview to Tucker Carlson in which he reiterated most of the Kremlin's basic claims as his own views. It is 'preposterous' that Vladimir Putin has ambitions beyond Ukraine, claimed Witkoff. He stated that there would be a presidential election in Ukraine. Music to Russian ears.
We have, though, had a rare sign of frustration from Trump about dealing with Russia. On Sunday he said he was 'angry' and 'pissed off' with Putin's response to US peace-brokering efforts. As always with Trump, he instinctively added something that revealed his convictions that Putin's motivations are good: 'If I think [the inability to stop the bloodshed] was Russia's fault, which it might not be...' Why on earth would you add that last clause? He went on to say that his anger with Putin could yet 'dissipate quickly' if the Russian president 'does the right thing'. The comments should not therefore be taken as much of an encouragement for Ukrainians, even if they were out of keeping with Trump's usual rhetoric on Putin and Russia.
Analysis demands some detachment from the day-to-day noise of politics. It cannot take a discordant remark and expect a new pattern to emerge. I have suggested previously that constraints on Trump's highly personalist foreign policy – in the form of institutional checks and balances – could kick in eventually, though frankly there is little evidence of that. Indeed, the signs are pointing in the wrong direction as I elaborate below. But perhaps Trump will turn on Putin, however hard that is to see at present, and institutional constraints will not be necessary. Whilst the pattern has not changed, could Trump's 'pissed off' remark nonetheless be a straw in the wind?