After a three-hour Kremlin meeting with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, the U.S. President emerged with renewed optimism about ending the war in Ukraine. “Great progress toward peace,” Trump announced. Yet this narrative sounds familiar to anyone tracking the past three years of failed negotiations.
The historical record is stark: Trump has entered peace talks with this administration four separate times, each time believing breakthrough progress was imminent. And each time, Putin responded with renewed military operations. Yesterday’s ceasefire promises from Moscow don’t erase the pattern of the Kremlin treating these negotiations as part of a larger strategic delay—what analysts increasingly call Putin’s procrastination game.
Decoding the Kremlin’s Timeline
The proposed trilateral summit bringing together Trump, Putin, and Zelensky represents either genuine diplomatic possibility or elaborate theater. Russia has yet to confirm Putin’s attendance, instead employing what experts call “long preparation periods”—diplomatic language for deliberate stalling.
David Salvo, a Russian affairs analyst, points out a critical economic reality: “The Russian economy is now structured around wartime production. Moscow has invested more resources into military expansion than into achieving peace.” This structural incentive creates a perverse logic: every month of war extends Russia’s military-industrial mobilization, while negotiations represent costly retrenchment.
Trump’s new leverage—threatened tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil and potential expanded sanctions—applies real economic pressure for the first time. Yet pressure alone cannot overcome the procrastination game if underlying incentives favor delay.
What Markets Should Watch
If peace actually holds:
Oil prices collapse significantly
Gold enters a sustained decline
The ruble strengthens against the dollar
Reconstruction sector stocks surge
TRUMP could face renewed selling pressure as geopolitical uncertainty recedes
If negotiations fail (the historical precedent):
Energy markets spike higher
Cryptocurrencies attract safe-haven demand
Market confidence in diplomatic solutions deteriorates
Volatility persists across traditional and digital assets
The Central Question
Trump’s credibility now rests on successfully concluding what Putin has delayed through four previous negotiation rounds. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, warns that the Kremlin may exploit Trump’s preference for headline-making achievements—offering theatrical concessions while preparing for further military operations.
The critical distinction this time: Trump has applied targeted economic sanctions with concrete impact, and Europe has unified behind American policy. These represent genuine changes from previous diplomatic rounds. Whether these factors finally break the procrastination game or merely postpone the inevitable remains the million-dollar question for markets and geopolitics alike.
The Real Bet: Don’t predict whether peace wins. Instead, identify who profits most from continued conflict—that actor controls the timeline.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
Trump's Moscow Talks: Another Round in Putin's Procrastination Game
TRUMP Price: $4.91 | 24H Change: -0.86%
The Pattern Repeating Itself
After a three-hour Kremlin meeting with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, the U.S. President emerged with renewed optimism about ending the war in Ukraine. “Great progress toward peace,” Trump announced. Yet this narrative sounds familiar to anyone tracking the past three years of failed negotiations.
The historical record is stark: Trump has entered peace talks with this administration four separate times, each time believing breakthrough progress was imminent. And each time, Putin responded with renewed military operations. Yesterday’s ceasefire promises from Moscow don’t erase the pattern of the Kremlin treating these negotiations as part of a larger strategic delay—what analysts increasingly call Putin’s procrastination game.
Decoding the Kremlin’s Timeline
The proposed trilateral summit bringing together Trump, Putin, and Zelensky represents either genuine diplomatic possibility or elaborate theater. Russia has yet to confirm Putin’s attendance, instead employing what experts call “long preparation periods”—diplomatic language for deliberate stalling.
David Salvo, a Russian affairs analyst, points out a critical economic reality: “The Russian economy is now structured around wartime production. Moscow has invested more resources into military expansion than into achieving peace.” This structural incentive creates a perverse logic: every month of war extends Russia’s military-industrial mobilization, while negotiations represent costly retrenchment.
Trump’s new leverage—threatened tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil and potential expanded sanctions—applies real economic pressure for the first time. Yet pressure alone cannot overcome the procrastination game if underlying incentives favor delay.
What Markets Should Watch
If peace actually holds:
If negotiations fail (the historical precedent):
The Central Question
Trump’s credibility now rests on successfully concluding what Putin has delayed through four previous negotiation rounds. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, warns that the Kremlin may exploit Trump’s preference for headline-making achievements—offering theatrical concessions while preparing for further military operations.
The critical distinction this time: Trump has applied targeted economic sanctions with concrete impact, and Europe has unified behind American policy. These represent genuine changes from previous diplomatic rounds. Whether these factors finally break the procrastination game or merely postpone the inevitable remains the million-dollar question for markets and geopolitics alike.
The Real Bet: Don’t predict whether peace wins. Instead, identify who profits most from continued conflict—that actor controls the timeline.