Interview by Vazha Tavberidze
John Foreman CBE, an independent consultant on Russia, Ukraine, and international security, brings decades of military and diplomatic experience to bear in understanding Kremlin strategy and Western responses. A former UK Defense Attaché in both Moscow and Kyiv, Foreman recently spoke with Radio Free Europe’s Georgian Service, offering a candid assessment of the current geopolitical dynamics surrounding the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine. In the interview, he expressed deep skepticism about the prospects of a meaningful peace deal brokered by Donald Trump, warning that the Kremlin is stringing Washington along with hollow promises and temporary concessions — a tactic he views as dangerously reminiscent of past failures in deterring Russian aggression.
First, President Trump’s “deadline,” which, after envoy Witkoff’s visit to Moscow, seems to have been extended again: did that deadline have Putin worried? Is he going to change his plans and behavior?
I doubt it. If we listen to the “music” coming out of what Putin said to Lukashenko, then the impression is that they think Trump’s bark is worse than his bite. I’m not convinced that without serious pressure being brought on by the Americans, Russia will change course, because Putin thinks he’s winning.
Sure, he wants to avoid sanctions, because we know their economy’s under strain, but he wants to carry on pressing on the ground. I think he wants to maintain a reasonable relationship with the Americans, so I think it more likely that Putin will try and string the Americans along with more talks on a partial truce, or by releasing children, or maybe a moratorium of sorts, something temporary. He’s playing for time.
And the other question, of course, is that Trump’s going to have to make a decision, which he’s consistently failed or not wanted to do for the last seven months. He already said 50 days, and then brought it forward. And although his language is hardened, and he’s been issuing tariffs against India, does he really want to bring the hammer down on China? Because China’s the big partner. Does he want to upend the world’s oil market? Does he really want to put 100% tariffs on those countries? He’s a very capricious man. His opinion changes from day to day.
How does Steve Witkoff’s visit affect Trump’s decision making? What were the takeaways of Witkoff diplomacy?
The problem with Witkoff and Trump is that they are transactional figures. They think that everybody wants a deal, “so we’ll have to just find a deal with the Russians and then we’ll have peace.” I don’t think the Russians want a deal at all. And I think Witkoff has been shown to be a credulous figure throughout the whole process. He goes to Moscow, and he goes to the White House and says: “Hey guys, the Russians really want to do a deal with us.” He was a guy who wanted to lift sanctions on energy, sanctions on Russia, or do something about Nord Stream, which was slapped down.
Do you think he is genuine in his beliefs and is just being played by the Russians, or is he just playing along?
I think he’s being played by the Russians. “Yeah, Steve, everything could be great. If only we could do a deal together.” He’s inexperienced. Every time he opens his mouth, he utters one Russian talking point or another. I don’t think he’s got a great understanding of the situation. I think he’s naive. They get him chatting with people like Dmitriev, to make it look like the big businessmen are discussing things, and then Dmitriev just effortlessly strings him along.
One tangible result, however, is that Putin and Trump are apparently poised to meet face to face. Possibly with Zelensky as well. What’s to expect from that?
Let’s just look at how Witkoff’s visit went. He sat there for three hours, wasn’t escorted, alone with Putin, without anybody who knows much about national security. And god knows what they discussed for those three hours, but the main takeaway seems to be this face-to-face summit between Trump and Putin. This, again, shows Trump’s capriciousness. One minute he’s threatening to put down tariffs, next minute, he’s bragging about a face to face summit as the result of a “very productive meeting.”
Trump doesn’t have a good track record of such summits, to put it mildly. If we go back and look at his earlier summit with Putin in Helsinki, or his meeting with Kim Jong-un. Both of those led to nothing. I fear Trump thinks he can Hail Mary this into peace, that he can turn up there, as the big man, and sort it all out, without prepwork.
What happens to that deadline now that they are going to meet? Will it be turned into another metaphor, like the “wrapping up the Ukraine war in 24 hours” ended up being?
Well, that deadline’s slipped even further away, because each time he gets close to a deadline, there’s another way found to try and slip around it. Now it seems he’s pinning things on this hastily arranged, half-cooked summit.
What worries me that Trump’s going to try to claim he’s achieved peace, Putin is going to string him along, avoid sanctions, provide some concession, and then they will try to strong arm the Ukrainians into accepting it, with the Europeans set aside. The Europeans will be marginalized, the Ukrainians will have to swallow what’s agreed, and Trump and Putin will claim they achieved peace.
Putin’s got all his Christmasses at once, because he’s got direct negotiations with the Americans over the fate of Ukraine, without the Ukrainians or Europeans at the table. He’s regarded as a great power, the big dog. He’s the one who’s brought Russia back on equal parity with the United States. They can usher us into a sort of modern Yalta. And we know what the consequences were of that for millions of people: being sold down the river. So I think the risks are very high.
The thing that’s being talked about is some sort of partial truce, such as in air combat. Would that be favorable to Ukraine, considering its reliance on drones?
Let’s face it, if Russia dangles the idea of the ceasefire being about hitting the cities, Trump will say: “Hey, great! I stopped them hitting the cities!” and then agree to continue the negotiations. But the ground war will continue, which means Russia can then focus all its effort on the frontal breakthroughs. And among other things, that would drop Ukraine from the headlines, deprive it of all the international attention, because nobody’s interested what’s going on at the front: they’re only interested nowadays if cities are hit, as cynical as it might sound.
It’s also the only thing that gets White House attention.
And the grinding battles, the dogged battle over some villages which people can’t even pronounce, after three years? They will just ignore that. So this would just drop Ukraine from the news agenda even further, which I think Russia would find a great boon. Then, when the time is right, Russia can blame the Ukrainians for violation.
Would that sort of truce also include hitting targets deep inside Russia?
Definitely. I think that would be part of the deal. But you know, Russia broke its obligations last time to stop hitting energy infrastructure inside Ukraine. And this time, Russia will get what it wants because it cannot defend its own sites on Russian soil: it has shown itself to be absolutely hopeless at protecting sites inside Russia.
So a) Moscow gets a respite from that, b) it drops Ukraine off the news agenda and c) it tries to get a sanctions reprieve by pretending it’s genuinely interested in peace, all the while increasing pressure on Ukraine by claiming it’s they who are unwilling to accept.
And then Trump will go and say: “Look, we had a deal, but the Ukrainians didn’t want to sign, so I am washing my hands of the whole problem.”
I think, fundamentally, Trump does want the whole problem to go away, and he’ll clutch at straws to get that.
Where does that leave Ukraine in these peace talks? Does Zelensky, to quote Trump once again, have any cards left up his sleeve?
I think it leaves Ukraine a very difficult position. Ukraine’s been on the back foot since 2023, since its offensive failed. The change in the White House is not just an issue about arms supplies, it’s also about Ukrainian morale. The Ukrainians are tired of war, and their biggest backers have waned over the last six or seven months. I think a lot of Ukrainians are putting hope now on Trump finally “getting it,” but as I said, I’m not entirely sure he’s going to do that, because that’s not in his nature. I think Trump is much more interested in China than he is in Ukraine. Fundamentally, he sees Ukraine as a European problem. And, sadly, the Europeans aren’t stepping up in the same way. That makes me think that, unfortunately, there is a real chance of a messy and wholly unsatisfactory peace deal, however temporary: one that swaps land for truce. And I think, since you are Georgian, you must know exactly what happened in 2008 after such a truce was negotiated. Unfortunately, I think that’s where the current trajectory points.
Header image source: https://chacr.org.uk/
