🇷🇺 Russia: From Cold War to Cold Call

Was this forwarded to you? Signpost is a free weekly newsletter analysing what the media says, what it means, and why it matters. It’s free to subscribe. Alternatively, you can add me on LinkedIn.

• On January 11th, we discussed the resignation of longtime Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. Following this, Canada’s new PM, Mark Carney, is expected to call for elections on April 28. Read our original breakdown here.

• On January 18th, we analysed the temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The truce has since ended, with fighting restarting. Read our past take here.

• On February 15th, we examined the collapse of the Honda-Nissan-Mitsubishi merger. Since then, Taiwan’s Foxconn is on the verge of an EV agreement with Mitsubishi. Read the original issue here.

• On March 1st, we looked at the succession battle and intergenerational family lawsuit at Singapore’s largest property developer CDL, between patriarch chairman and group CEO son. The lawsuit has since been dropped. Read our previous take here.

• On March 8th, we analysed the announcement of a new boxing league sponsored by Saudi Arabia, the latest in its seismic moves to buy global sport. There is now speculation that Saudi Arabia is planning something similar in cricket. Read the previous analysis here.

🤙🏽 New president, who dis?

It’s been about two months since U.S. president Donald Trump returned to office, and in that time he has done much to appeal to his base who’ve supported him for the last decade (yes, it’s been that long). And while we can’t keep up with who or what is under tariffs today versus tomorrow, a big part of his push to victory this time has been his consistent message that he will end the wars in the Middle East and Europe.

As part of those efforts, this week Trump spoke to Vladimir Putin over the phone (I’m unaware if they used an actual phone line, or Teams/Zoom), marking the first time since the full scale invasion began in 2022 that a sitting U.S. president has spoken with Putin. If you’ll remember, previous U.S. president Joe Biden did not engage with Putin, even though his European counterparts, particularly French president Emmanuel Macron, made overtures in the last three years.

The media in Russia generally painted this phone call as evidence of Russian military and diplomatic success (and really, who can blame them?). In this issue of Signpost, we will look at the reporting of the event, specifically what two polarised Russian news outlets categorised as the ‘key takeaways’ from the call. Both the nationalist (RT) and independent (The Moscow Times) news media used almost the same headlines for their articles as well.

THE MOSCOW TIMES: Takeaways from Trump-Putin Call [link]

📢 What The Moscow Times is saying
The Amsterdam-based and Dutch-owned online news media has reprinted the article from news agency Agence France-Presse (we’ll discuss why later). The article refers to both the Kremlin and White House official summaries of the call, and contrasts their messaging under key topics, helpfully also including what was not covered in the official summaries.

1. 📸 Visuals

There is only one image for the article, and it features a side facial profile of a rather morose looking Putin on the phone, with what looks like Saint Basil’s Cathedral in bokeh behind him. He’s wearing a dark suit with a light shirt, and the telephone receiver in his left hand is black plastic with a black wire. He’s holding the receiver up to his left ear. It’s not clear whether he’s sitting by a window, is outside, or whether the background is simply mocked up.

2. ✍🏽 Words

The headline of the article is fairly straightforward, however it does refer to the call as the ‘Trump-Putin call’. The article begins with the phrase ‘in a closely watched phone call’, indicating the importance of the call, before announcing that both presidents agreed to a ‘30-day ceasefire on energy infrastructure’, without agreeing to a ‘full truce’.

The article then outlines a series of topics which were discussed in the call, saying that the article will analyse where the ‘leaders agreed and where they diverged’. The first topic, the ‘energy grid truce’ is classified as a ‘main win for Trump’. The section also includes a sentence from the Kremlin, saying that “Vladimir Putin responded positively” and commanded his military to stop strikes immediately.

Next, the article mentions that both leaders agreed to ‘start negotiations’ on a ceasefire in the Black Sea, which will begin, as per the White House, “immediately in the Middle East”.

Here’s where the article questions whether Ukraine and Europe have been sidelined in the discussions. The article states that the two regions (and allies) have been ‘bristling at being left out’ of the discussions, while reiterating that the Kremlin has called for ‘further bilateral talks’. This has led to both countries calling for ‘improving U.S.-Russian ties’.

A sticking point is mentioned next, with Putin having called for the U.S. to stop military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine, along with calling for the disarmament of Ukraine. However, the article continues that both Putin and Trump ‘agreed on a Russian-Ukrainian prisoner exchange’.

The article ends with highlighting what was left unsaid by both parties, including ‘failing to announce the full ceasefire’ and ‘no mention of territorial concessions’, before concluding that Trump was receptive of Putin’s idea to organise hockey matches between the two countries.

❓ What it means
First of all, the article classifies the call as a ‘Trump-Putin’ call (this is significant, as you will see later). The fact that Trump’s name comes first indicates that he is the one who is taking lead on the call. Calling the call ‘closely watched’ also outlines the severity of the stakes at play, and the impact of the call on several major countries and general global politics. This isn’t a courtesy call to be taken lightly.

Second, the article starts off with the news of the 30-day ceasefire, positioning it as a major accomplishment for Trump. This does lend itself a little to Trump’s self-proclaimed legendary negotiating skills, however the article then quickly mentions a non-announcement: the agreement to ‘start’ negotiations. This could be done as a way to balance the positive portrayal of Trump at the beginning of the article.

The mention of Europe and Ukraine left out of the negotiations is odd, considering that this was a phone call between two people, not a conference call. But the fact that it is even mentioned hints at AFP’s European base and heritage. The article jumps between positive and negative outcomes from the call, almost to indicate the chaotic nature and overall messy negotiations that this situation demands. However, it end by clearly stating that several major outcomes were not discussed, paramount of which is a total ceasefire. And the mention of hockey at the end? It could be read as a bit of straw-clutching by the two military powers to portray the call as a success, which AFP and The Moscow Times definitely feel is not relevant, which is why it’s mentioned in the end in a ludicrous tone.

And the image itself? It shows Putin looking almost depressed. Not the kind of image we are used to seeing him portrayed in the media.

⚠️ Why it matters
The Moscow Times not only operates outside of Russia, it’s been designated as an ‘undesirable’ organisation, after having been labelled a ‘foreign agent’. Ultimately, this means that there is no love lost between the Russian establishment and The Moscow Times. It’s quite likely that they were not part of the media on the ground covering the event, and therefore, because of their Dutch base, lean fairly pro-Western Europe, as indicated by their use of AFP’s news report. Their Russian-language website is no longer accessible in Russia, so ultimately they are speaking in English to an international audience. Their intentions and alignments are clearly communicated, right from their choice of image.

RT: Putin-Trump phone call: Key takeaways [link]

📢 What RT is saying
From the headline, to the article visuals, to the actual content of the article, all elements are geared towards making one man look very good: Vladimir Putin.

1. 📸 Visuals

There is, once again, only one visual at the article at the top. In it, we see a smiling Putin offering his hand to Trump. Both men are sitting down on white sofas, and behind them drape the flags of their respective countries. Between them is a white table on which sits a vase (hidden by Trump’s arm) of blue and white flowers, while a pen and some papers are visible on the table.

Both men are in dark suits, white shirts, and dark ties. Putin’s has a pattern, while Trump’s is striped. Putin is on the left of the image, and is reaching his right hand over to Trump, who is on the right of the image and is extending his right hand. Both men look comfortable and relaxed. Trump looks like he is saying something to Putin, who is smiling in response.

Looking at the handshake, Putin’s hand is on top of Trump’s, with Putin’s (likely highly expensive) watch visible.

2. ✍🏽 Words

The headline proclaims the event as the ‘Putin-Trump phone call’, flipping the sequence of names in The Moscow Times. The headline itself is quite similar in words and structure to the previous article. Following the headline, the subtitle outlines that both ‘Russian and US leaders have discussed the prospect of a ‘settlement’ regarding what it calls the ‘Ukraine conflict’, along with improving their own relations.

With the start of the article proper, Putin’s name is mentioned first again, and the phone call is described as ‘much-anticipated [sic]’. The article also mentions that the call ‘lasted for two and a half hours’, saying both sides reacted positively to the call.

Like The Moscow Times, the article breaks up the text under key topics, the first of which discusses the ‘potential ceasefire’, referring here to a total ceasefire and cessation of all hostilities. While the article says that both presidents discussed ‘Trump’s idea of a 30-day ceasefire’, Putin still asked for more assurances against Ukraine. The article also highlights how ‘Putin also drew Trump’s attention to’ what the Russians call “barbaric terrorist crimes” being committed by Ukraine in Kursk.

While discussing the 30-day ceasefire that was agreed to and announced, the article calls it a ceasefire on ‘energy infrastructure’, but it quotes the White House statement saying it is an “energy and infrastructure” (emphasis mine) ceasefire. Following this, the article outlines the prisoner exchange, positioning it as something Putin ‘told his American counterpart about’, which is different from what was published in The Moscow Times. It also proclaims Moscow’s return of 23 Ukrainian servicemen as a gesture of ‘goodwill’. The article then mentions that both parties agree to a ‘need for lasting peace’, before ending the article by mentioning that both parties are ‘agreeing to work on mutually beneficial projects’, without stating what those are.

❓ What it means
Outside of putting Putin’s name first in the headline and the article, describing the phone call as ‘much-anticipated’ is how I would describe Swifties attending a Taylor Swift concert if I wanted to play it down. Part of the reason for such wording could be so that the outcomes of the call are not unnecessarily attributed to Trump and his expert art-of-the-deal-ing.

RT goes further to portray Ukraine as a key obstacle to the process, calling their incursion into Russia’s Kursk region as both ‘barbaric’ and ‘terrorist crimes’. This positioning balances out the aggressors in the conflict, putting both Russia and Ukraine on equal footing and perception.

The slight change in phrasing on the energy infrastructure ceasefire is telling. It’s unlikely that this has been a misinterpretation or communications oversight. What is the difference between energy infrastructure, and energy and infrastructure? One could argue that one is purely to do with power stations, while the other includes power stations plus public infrastructure, like hospitals, airports, schools, public utilities etc. How each side views the ceasefire will be crucial to its implementation.

Finally, no mention of hockey here. Perhaps that was to save the article from a tonal shift, where it might be challenging to portray Putin as the elder statesmen.

⚠️ Why it matters
RT’s coverage is, like The Moscow Times, very clear in its bias and alignment. This is a Putin story that has Trump playing a supporting role. It’s no surprise to learn that RT is government backed. Even the photo used in the article shows a smiling, dominant Putin. It is surprising that the article begins with the mention of the non-agreement of the total ceasefire, keeping the actual agreement of the energy infrastructure ceasefire to later. Perhaps this is to prime readers that while there is a temporary, specific ceasefire around specific infrastructure, overall fighting is still ongoing, and people shouldn’t start expecting the status quo to change too much simply because of one phone call.

WHAT’S GOING ON? 

☎️ Dial-tone Diplomacy

We’ve been here before, haven’t we?

Back in Trump’s first term, two meetings between the Americans and the North Koreans took place. Actual, face-to-face ones. And nothing happened. If anything, North Korea is now more closely aligned with Russia than it was back then. Clearly in global high stakes diplomacy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The media is also caught in a bind, particularly those in Europe. On one hand, Europe cannot ignore the news about a war on their land from which they have politically been sidelined. On the other, Europe cannot openly be giving credit to any progress towards peace, real or perceived, to Trump or Putin. So while this is, for all intents and purposes, a European war, they have not (yet) been invited to the negotiating table.

The coverage in the media reflects this as well. The Moscow Times, through AFP, asked where Ukraine and Europe were in this phone call. RT does not mention them at all. How does this situation play out?

A total ceasefire brokered by the U.S. and Russia based off of peace talks in the Middle East? A U.S. withdrawal leading to a Russian victory? A European surge leading to a continuing stalemate, or perhaps even a Ukrainian victory?

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.
Read widely. Question thoroughly. Decide accordingly.

WEEKLY POLL

LAST WEEK’S POLL

ALSO THIS WEEK

• Kirsty Coventry, Zimbabwe’s most decorated olympian, has been elected as the first ever female and African (and youngest ever at 41) president of the International Olympic Committee.

• Finland has been ranked as the world’s happiest country for the eighth consecutive year.

• London’s Heathrow Airport is closed after a fire at a nearby substation that supplies the airport with power.

Was this forwarded to you? Signpost is a free weekly newsletter analysing what the media says, what it means, and why it matters. It’s free to subscribe. Alternatively, you can add me on LinkedIn.