Klaus Kondrup: Washington Gambit

Spassky vs. Bronstein. Leningrad 1960; King's Gambit accepted

The US government’s ability to form a viable and agile negotiating position was tested this week.The hurdle is to arrange allies, vassals, and marionettes in concert, and gain trust from the Kremlin by seeming sincere. Essentially difficult.

Delicate Diplomacy

There were three European leaders at The White House last week: Emmanuel Macron, Kier Starmer, and Volodomyr Zelenskyy, representing France, U.K., and Ukraine. Each of these gentlemen came home with very different results: one was given the task of gathering the Europeans, the other was removed from the game, while the third was being prepared to be sacrificed when necessary. In chess the combination of these stratagems is called a gambit. The question is always: will the gambit succeed; that is, will the leverage gained bring a sufficient positional advantage to make up for the sacrificed material; will cutting ties with London and building on Paris create a viable stance vis a vis Moscow?

Towards peace talks?

Washington must build a position that can lead to the implementation of a solution for European security or falter. I am giving you the contours of what is going on, here, with some concrete speculation added, to give you a clear idea; I do not have a crystal ball, but this is what it looks like to the observer: Geo-strategically, what should be avoided is that the result of the efforts to build and sustain Ukraine, ends up in a Lviv-state that is militarized, ultra-nationalist, and bend on fighting Russia forever. No one, but a few hawks in Kremlin, Westminster and US State Department, would want that outcome. If we expect Moscow to crush the Pokrovsk/Kramatorsk/Kupyansk line this summer, which is very likely to be the outcome of the fighting on the ground in Ukraine, the prospect for USA will be to enter negotiations with Moscow in the spring and seek a settlement somewhere before August.

Analytical Elements

• French position: Sustain NATO as a coherent posture but remove the weapons that are most threatening to Moscow, that concerns missile launch sites in north of Poland (Redzikowo) and north of Rumania (Deveselu). Europe must replace US troops leaving the Russian border states (bases supporting Middle East are not part of the US shuffle suggested; eastern deployments are). Here, a vacuum must be filled up and France is the central power in this regard due to its nuclear weapons and its political position within the EU.

Immediate goal: Hang on to leadership amongst European countries by using the vacuum in Berlin and stable contacts to Spain, Italy, Denmark (as representative of The Baltic Sea countries), and Poland.

• U.K. position: Aim for a cease fire (stall things in a Minsk format while rearming the Ukrainians to fight again later ‘to the last man standing’; Kremlin wants peace agreement and is opposed to cease fire), negotiate territory (Kremlin demands withdrawal from annexed territory to begin negotiations), U.K. troops on the ground (non-starter for Kremlin who will treat them as AFU soldiers and break off talks) under US umbrella.

Immediate goal: Avoid tariffs imposed on U.K. by USA and sustain ‘special relationship between U.K. and USA.’

• Ukraine position: Zelensky’s signature on a piece of paper on the right to minerals does not mean much, in terms of an international contract; signing off Ukraine to Washington cannot be done in a two pager. But the whole set up at The White House mimed a surrender from a US puppet. Now, the standing of Kyiv in the mosaic of interests is unclear, I guess, even to themselves. The next day Zelensky had a new puppeteer. Here, it is important to see, that despite the lack of agency, Kyiv is necessary for Washington to implement solutions concerning the oblasts held by Kyiv. Zelensky was met by officials from State Department, Pentagon, CIA, and the budget bureau, where the payments are coming from, indicating that the president of Ukraine could be replaced, while preserving decisions with a new regime in Kyiv; like a year ago, observers mention the possibility that the coming leader will be general Zalushnyi, and speculation is that Zelensky’s private security was handled by MI6 from December 2024, but was transferred back to the CIA this week. The French term for Zelenskyy’s role is ‘Marionette,’ i.e. moved by strings attached. When the puppet does not obey, there is a serious issue. Washington cut Zelensky loose.

Immediate goal: Personal survival. Boost domestic audience support. Avoid capitulation.

Towards European Unity?

The situation is utterly unpredictable, with scores of uncertain factors. This is geopolitics, and primarily about interest and capabilities of different capitals, but at this stage individual personal performance can influence outcomes. Macron is obviously mentally capable of grasping this gambit, and his own nearly impossible position: The European governments do not have a clue what is going on and believes in narratives. Trump stayed emotionally clear but got stuck in repetitions of rhetorical images. In the end, after seeking to save Zelensky’s face for half an hour, he got tied. Starmer, as all British political elitists since the Crimean War (1853-1856), hates the Russians, but plays the role of bad cop opposite Macron with some effect, (quite revealing when he keeps his body language in protection of his softer parts: legs crossed with his hands in the waste), but the attempt was useless facing a decisive Trump, ready to play his cards: There was no support from Washington to the bellicose line held by London. The U.K. position is now irrelevant and the British reduced to what they are best at: Propaganda. In this way their position may still be very effective, resonating throughout European capitals, while London stands on the sideline, having shown the will to fight, taking the limelight off from Paris to get everyone in line. European leaders still talk about cease fire and a peace-keeping force; yet they are unable to contribute to a solution that could bring about peace.

A Dangerous Charade

At one point, at the press conference with Starmer, Trump comes to twice repeating some mumbling, as if territory is to be negotiated in Ukraine. That is an obstacle, since the Russian chief negotiator Sergei Lavrov will naturally demand, that if talks shall continue after this public undermining of their foundation, the original positions of the parties must of course be reinterpreted to sustain dialogue. Real diplomacy is not the same as a televised quarrel. Maybe everything is simple going to be postponed a week or a month, giving Washington more time to get their positioning and politicking in order. Trust is low between all parties, and this is a display of diplomacy where, as Macron said: ‘It should not look like a capitulation;’ of course not, one would add, although that is exactly, what it is. Towards the end of the press conference with Starmer and Trump, the odd question of Canada was left unsettled between the parties in plain sight, indicating that London lost all say in that matter, as well. Some geopolitics in The Indian Ocean was sought settled and Trump agreed to visit King Charles. A few days later, we see pictures of Zelensky in London with the King and the European leaders. Well, well, well.

Conclusions

What position Washington ends up taking before negotiations can commence is unclear (dialogue is sustained and talks will continue), and what Washington can deliver in terms of its vassals and proselytes is also unclear. Currently, we see a lot of signaling from U.K. and EU countries, but how they will add constructively to a peace settlement is still up in the air. Kyiv must find a way to capitulate and short of that, the aim for Washington must be to avoid breaking down of dialogue, because Kremlin deems it ‘not serious’; that would be devastating for Ukraine. Washington has its own agenda vis a vis everyone else, though, so it is complex.

The European populations and governments alike are entrenched in their narratives and subjected to illusions. If France can tie a knot on the (diverse) European interests (there are differences in cost for different countries vis a vis Russia), then that would be a huge step forward. The big question is whether Washington can master the complexity; it must cut London out and deal with Paris, who is the only credible partner, especially when it comes to autonomy of its nuclear arsenal. If France is to provide a credible nuclear deterrent, then its arsenal shall be modernized.

The Russian negotiating team, Lavrov, flanked by Ushakov and a young economy wizard Dmitriev, reminds me of the Soviet Union vs The Rest of the World chess matches back in the day, where a huge defeat was celebrated as a good performance in the West. Gambits may backfire facing strong opposition. When negotiations commence, they may suddenly be cut short, but given the enormous number of topics, from The Baltics to The Black Sea (Kaliningrad, Belarus, Moldavia) and beyond, stretching into the realm of global geoeconomics, it would be incredible, if a comprehensive agreement should be reached before the last Ukrainian soldier is no longer standing. Larger miracles have happened in diplomacy, but we must prepare ourselves, that this could take a while.

Klaus Kondrup writes geopolitical commentary on Substack