By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals mixed public reaction to President Trump’s early executive orders. While actions on immigration and a government hiring freeze garnered some support, significant opposition emerged against ending birthright citizenship and renaming the Gulf of Mexico. The poll also showed a decline in Trump’s overall approval rating, now at 45 percent, with disapproval rising to 46 percent. Concerns about rising living costs remain a dominant public concern, potentially impacting the long-term political implications of the president’s early actions.
Read the original article here
Zelensky’s assertion that Putin fears negotiations to end the war in Ukraine centers on the potential consequences of peace, not necessarily the act of negotiating itself. The prospect of a massive influx of disillusioned soldiers returning home presents a significant threat to Putin’s regime. These soldiers, potentially angry, injured, and financially cheated, would face a potentially unstable economy with limited job prospects. Adding to this volatile mix is a civilian population that may be either apathetic or actively blame them for the war’s outcome.
This potential for widespread unrest forms the crux of Zelensky’s argument. The implications extend beyond mere social instability; the sheer scale of potential discontent could pose an existential threat to Putin’s authority. Any peace agreement, signed under duress or not, risks being meaningless if the underlying societal issues remain unresolved. This underlying tension, the potential for domestic turmoil that outweighs any strategic gains from negotiations, is the true fear driving Putin’s reluctance, according to Zelensky’s assessment.
Furthermore, the very nature of any peace agreement presents an insurmountable obstacle. The substantial differences in desired outcomes create an almost unbridgeable gap. Russia’s desire to retain all annexed territories clashes directly with Ukraine’s demand for their return. This fundamental disagreement underscores the difficulties in crafting a mutually beneficial agreement, further solidifying Zelensky’s claim about Putin’s apprehension about the negotiating table.
This inherent distrust in any potential agreement is further compounded by Putin’s established track record of violating agreements. The skepticism surrounding any promise Putin makes is well-founded, implying that any peace deal would be unlikely to hold. This lack of trust reinforces the perception that negotiations are not a viable path to resolving the conflict, but rather a risky maneuver with potentially catastrophic consequences for the Russian state.
The potential for internal conflict within Russia, echoing past historical examples, further fuels Zelensky’s assessment of Putin’s apprehension. The return of numerous veterans from past conflicts has historically destabilized regimes. The scale of this potential instability, combined with the existing socio-economic pressures within Russia, paints a concerning picture of the potential consequences of peace, a picture Zelensky believes Putin understands all too well.
The economic realities also bolster Zelensky’s argument. While the Russian economy isn’t entirely ruined, it is far from stable. It’s currently propped up by the war industry, creating a precarious balance. The cessation of hostilities would likely lead to a drastic reduction in this war-fueled economic activity, potentially triggering widespread economic collapse. This risk, combined with the sociopolitical risks already discussed, amplifies the stakes of negotiation from Putin’s perspective.
Another factor to consider is the current military situation. Russia is not winning the war. Its tactical and operational failures are being studied globally, and it appears to be falling increasingly behind in areas like drone warfare. This continuous losing streak weakens Putin’s position domestically and internationally, further increasing the risks associated with entering negotiations. The potential for further military losses also fuels the perception of a regime on the verge of collapse, making any negotiation inherently risky.
In short, Zelensky’s claim that Putin is afraid of negotiations is not about a fear of the negotiations themselves, but rather a deeply rooted concern about the far-reaching and potentially devastating consequences should peace be achieved. The internal instability, economic collapse, and loss of control that Putin may perceive as inevitable outcomes of any agreement seem to outweigh any perceived benefit of negotiation, solidifying Zelensky’s perception of Putin’s fear. The inherent distrust in any agreement, coupled with Russia’s current military predicament, further reinforces this interpretation. The situation is complex, with high stakes for all parties involved.