US President Donald Trump said Wednesday that Vladimir Putin has recently offered to play the role of mediator in tensions between Israel and Iran. But Trump's response was sharp: first, the Kremlin leader should contribute to stopping the war that Russia himself started in Ukraine.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin/Photo: Archive
“I talked to him yesterday,” Trump said in front of journalists, near his residence. “He told me he wanted to help, to mediate. I replied: Make me a favor-start by media at home. I said: Vladimir, first of all your war with Ukraine. The rest, the Middle East, we take care of later.”
Although Trump did not provide additional details about the mentioned discussion, his statement raises question marks, as there is no recent official confirmations on a direct telephone call between the two. The last known reference to such contact dates from June 14.
The statements of the US leader come shortly after he had suggested in a previous interview that he would not exclude a possible involvement of Vladimir Putin as a mediator in the Israeli-Iranian crisis. At that time, Trump said that the Russian president would be “opened” and “prepared” for such a role.
A “mediation” under the sign of ambiguity
Putin's proposal, if it was really, comes in a delicate moment for Russia's foreign policy, facing international isolation as a result of aggression on Ukraine and supporting anti-Western actors in key regions, including the Middle East.
Trump, known for his direct style and often unpredictable rhetoric, has left to understand that in Ukraine “a solution will be found.” It is not the first time he expresses optimism about a possible end of the war, suggesting that he personally could facilitate a peace agreement in a short term, if he returned to the White House.
However, the idea that Russia-an aggressor in the Ukrainian conflict-to be perceived as an impartial actor in another international conflict raises problems of credibility, both among the Western diplomats and in the public space.
In the absence of official positions that clarify the nature and moment of the discussion invoked, it remains to be seen whether the mentioned initiative reflects a real diplomatic opening or just a rhetorical movement in a tense election year.
