For decades, Soviet diplomacy honed the tactics of brutal blackmail and pressure. Their approach has not changed since the days of Andrei Gromyko, of whom Henry Kissinger once said: “Negotiating with him without knowing every detail of the problem is tantamount to suicide.”This tactic can be summed up in Gromyko’s own words: “First: demand everything to the maximum, don’t be shy in your claims, ask for what never belonged to you. Second: issue ultimatums. Threaten war, spare no threats, and then as a way out of the situation offer negotiations. In the West there will always be those who bite. Third: once negotiations begin, do not yield an inch. They will themselves offer you part of what you demanded. But even then, don’t agree — squeeze out more. They will give in.”It seems precisely this tactic nullified Trump’s ultimatums and threats before the whole world, live from Alaska. The Trump team’s attempts to present this colossal failure as a victory only further highlight the White House’s inability to outplay the Kremlin.Trump’s weakness is rooted in his own traits: he does not prepare for talks, he disregards experts, he dislikes lengthy and tedious negotiations, and his inability to stay focused has long been exploited by the Russians.The outcome of the Alaska meeting must be studied by future diplomats — as an example of the “Gromyko tactic” in action, and of how the U.S. squandered both its strategic advantage and the political capital Trump had invested. For Ukrainian negotiators, this should also serve as a lesson in the fallacy of the “just look him in the eyes” approach. Hopefully, this is already clear to everyone — as clear as the need to have substantiated positions ready to counter every absurd claim about the so-called “roots of the conflict.”Still, in the persistence of these Russian methods lies their predictability. Their clichés and tricks are well-known, though never to be taken lightly.The main trap that Trump fell into was Putin’s framing: tying a “grand peace deal” to a broader concept of “a fair balance of European and global security.” This means the end of the war would now depend not only on concessions from Ukraine but also on concessions Putin expects from the West. In doing so, he makes Ukraine hostage to Russia’s entire list of grievances — from NATO expansion to “non-interference in former Soviet states.” Add to this the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Putin can drag out negotiations indefinitely without halting hostilities.The only thing the “master of the deal” managed was to hold off on cutting a deal, refraining from discussing trade until agreement on Ukraine was reached. That is good news for us, since Trump, unrestrained, can easily reverse his positions and promises.The question now is whether Trump will change his rhetoric again after meeting with European leaders — and whether they will be able to “re-enchant” him and reframe the narrative Putin imposed. There is still a chance.Frankly, it might even be time to award Trump the long-desired Nobel Peace Prize — just to keep him from meeting Putin again, provided he continues supplying weapons in exchange for “wonderful” European checks. For us, as for the Europeans, that would be the best outcome.They would not object either. Israeli leaders Levi Eshkol in 1967 and Benjamin Netanyahu in 2025 both listened to shouts from the White House yet conducted their wars and negotiations their own way. Neither destroyed “transatlantic unity.”The worst option now would be a trilateral meeting between Zelenskyy, Trump, and Putin. That would be a trap with no way out. Such a format is only possible once everything is already agreed upon, with draft texts ready and joint negotiating teams working out the details.Negotiations with Russia must be conducted by a united Europe — where each ally contributes its own knowledge of how to circumvent Russian tactics. Some know-how from us, some from the French, some from the British.It is hard to imagine, but even harder to go through — and to achieve peace. Not peace on Putin’s terms, but peace we can live with, a peace that allows Ukraine to develop.SourceAbout the author: Lana Zerkal, Ukrainian diplomat, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine for European Integration.The editorial board does not always share the views expressed in opinion pieces.