Extremely troubling news has emerged from London: the meeting was cancelled, and the United States abruptly scaled back its presence at the negotiating conference. What was Donald Trump’s strategy? Is there any clarity on what the U.S. delegation was expected to bring to the table, and why their actions derailed the meeting?
Rubio is a very busy man and had something else he needed to do. My understanding is that General Kellogg is there, and he is very competent. So he could certainly handle this. It may simply be a scheduling conflict, and Rubio decided not to go.
The key question, of course, is what will be discussed and what will be agreed upon there. We have some hints, but we do not have solid information about what will actually be on the table.
What kind of framework might General Kellogg have been expected to propose on behalf of the United States?
Well, there have been reports, including one by The Wall Street Journal, that the proposal the United States is putting on the table calls for Ukraine to recognize Crimea as Russian territory.
I hope that report is either a trial balloon or simply false, because first, Ukraine is not going to accept it, so it would not be a step toward peace. Secondly, it would represent a renunciation of American principles, principles we’ve upheld since refusing to recognize the Soviet Union’s control over the Baltic States in 1940. Trump would also be reversing his own policy, the doctrine issued under Secretary of State Pompeo during his first term, that the United States would never recognize Russian control of Crimea.
So, we’ll have to wait and see. But unfortunately, we’ve seen a troubling pattern with Trump: after Russia rejects reasonable proposals, he often responds by offering additional concessions. That may be what’s happening here, but again we do not know for certain.
Pope Francis’ funeral will take place at the Vatican in a few days. Both Trump and Zelenskyy are expected to attend. Is there any hope of restoring a constructive dialogue with Washington? It remains unclear how the Trump administration envisions the future, whether continuing the war or bringing it to an end, and what role America plans to play in that process. If Secretary Rubio is to be believed, the United States may be preparing to turn its back on the Old Continent.
On the war in Ukraine, which I’m concerned about right now, we’ll see how it develops — and also how the relationship between President Zelensky and President Trump evolves.
I think President Zelenskyy is too quick to criticize Trump and his team. Not that they don’t deserve criticism, but it’s not helpful for Ukraine–U.S. relations when Zelenskyy himself does it. Other senior Ukrainian officials can voice concerns without the negative impact that comes when the president personally criticizes the United States. Even when Putin dislikes U.S. policy, he doesn’t criticize it directly — he lets other Russians do that. That’s a smart tactic.
It would be good if President Zelenskyy took that as a tactical suggestion.
And what does President Trump mean by a fair deal? Putin is demanding Ukraine’s surrender; he wants our territory. Trump has shifted the U.S. position. Under previous administrations, we heard consistent support from Washington: America stood with us, one way or another, until the goal was achieved. On this fundamental issue, Trump has taken a different stance, framing the U.S. as a neutral mediator, one that could now step away from the negotiation process entirely. So what exactly does Trump mean by a “fair, honest deal”?
The United States was a partner to Ukraine and provided significant assistance to prevent a Russian victory. And you’re right, Putin wants Ukraine to capitulate. He wants political control over the country. But we all know that President Biden was timid. He was intimidated by Putin’s nuclear threats.
As a result, he never allowed Ukraine to use American weapons in ways that could have driven Russian forces out, maybe not from all of Ukraine but from much of it. That was a serious flaw in his policy.
Trump, as you said, has shifted from being a partner to Ukraine to acting more as an intermediary, and I believe that’s a mistake.
That said, Trump did have a concept for a durable peace, an idea he has not abandoned, which would involve Ukraine accepting on a de facto basis, not a legal one, Russian control of some Ukrainian territory. In exchange, Ukraine would pause its bid for NATO membership, at least temporarily. But it would also require Russia to accept real security guarantees for Ukraine, including the deployment of European troops and a steady supply of significant weapons from the United States and its allies to deter future Russian aggression.
Unsurprisingly, Putin has rejected this concept.
Trump had previously said that if either side rejected reasonable terms for peace, he would apply pressure on them. Yet he has been reluctant to pressure Putin, even though Putin has rejected Trump’s approach. I believe this hesitation is due to some naive advisers currently influencing Trump.
However, we know that there are also other advisers around Trump who understand how dangerous Russia is, not just for Ukraine but also for NATO and the United States. They are trying to persuade him to follow through on the plans he laid out months ago to hold accountable whichever side is blocking the path to peace.
If, for example, the United States steps back from the game, in what capacity would it still be willing to provide assistance to us? Would it take the form of a land lease style agreement, buying weapons on credit, or simply regular arms purchases? Or could we face a veto on the supply of American weapons, even if they are routed through EU countries? For instance, what happens if the Europeans fund or purchase U.S. weapons for us, like long-range artillery or missile systems such as the Patriot, which are urgently needed to protect our civilian infrastructure?
You mentioned the United States actively blocking anyone from sending American weapons to Ukraine that may become policy. I can’t say for sure that it won’t happen again, but I think it’s highly unlikely.
The smart and appropriate policy, given the parameters of Trump’s thinking, would be to allow Ukraine — either through loans or through European countries acting on its behalf — to purchase advanced American weapons to support its efforts on the battlefield. I think that’s not just a possibility, but one of the more likely policy directions.
Another possibility, somewhat more likely but still uncertain, would be for the United States to allow certain categories of equipment to be transferred to Ukraine while restricting others. But again, I don’t think the United States would start actively blocking the supply of American weapons to Ukraine, wherever they may be. That would be an extraordinary mistake.
It would be a huge error that would undermine both America’s own security and its defense industry, because it would make other countries less likely to purchase American weapons. And it would also undermine American leadership.
A few days ago, I had the honour of speaking with General Wesley Clark, the former head of U.S. European Command, who played a key role in bringing the Milosevic era to an end. It was a bloody and high-risk operation, but the United States succeeded in stopping the war in the Balkans. According to General Clark, there is no indication that Putin is ready to scale back his aggression against Ukraine. On the contrary, Russia appears to be preparing a major offensive in the south. The recent actions in the Kharkiv and Sumy regions are tactical, while the Kremlin’s strategic focus remains on the south, particularly Odesa. Do you see any sign that Putin is ready for meaningful negotiations?
They want to make sure Ukraine has no access to the Black Sea, to take Odesa, and to extend their reach all the way to Moldova. It’s clear that this is what they aim to do. They tried to achieve that in 2022 and failed.
I don’t think they currently have anything close to the resources needed to carry out such a plan. The only scenario in which they might consider attempting it again would be if the flow of weapons to Ukraine stopped.
Furthermore, Europe will continue to supply weapons to Ukraine. And as we just discussed, I don’t think Trump will ultimately block the supply of American weapons to Ukraine either.
British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that we, the EU, the UK, and Ukraine, are all facing a critical moment right now. It is clear that uncertainty is growing in many European capitals regarding the reliability of NATO’s Article 5. I am convinced that Russia will not wait several years to test the West’s resolve. Do you have a sense yet of how committed the United States truly is to fulfilling its obligations to NATO member states, particularly Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland?
There are intentions concerning European security, including intentions toward NATO. But my sense is that the administration has not changed American policy on NATO — that they remain committed to Article 5. And the Russians would be very foolish to expect that America would stand aside if any NATO country were attacked.
I also believe that the best way to prevent any Russian attack on a NATO country is to ensure that Ukraine wins this war.
Is an alternative format for the peace conference possible, one that includes additional players such as China and India? What we are seeing now effectively marks the end of the larger conference, at least for the next six months.
I think that if Trump is true to his statement that he wants a durable peace, then the question is absolutely right — there is not going to be peace in six months. A durable peace means that Russia must accept security measures that would prevent future Russian aggression.
If Trump listens to very naive advisers and decides to push for a deal without such security guarantees, Ukraine will not accept it. So he will either have to pressure Russia to accept those security measures or pressure Ukraine to accept an agreement that would result in Russian control over Ukraine — or simply adjust his policies.
So, we have to wait and see how the administration moves.
Are Donald Trump and those around him fully aware of the global consequences of their decisions? In recent months, the world has felt like something out of an Alfred Hitchcock film.
Look, there are smart people around Trump who understand the situation.
They know that allowing Putin to win in Ukraine is very dangerous for the United States — not just in Europe, but also in the Far East. At the same time, there are naive advisers around Trump who have no real grasp of the stakes. They don’t seem to understand that Russia’s national security doctrine identifies the United States as Moscow’s principal adversary.
Trump listens to all of these advisers — both the sound ones and the naive ones.
So we have to wait and see how this plays out. But again, Trump is on record as having said that he wants Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, independent, and secure state. To achieve that, he cannot insist on a peace that offers no security for Ukraine. If he does insist on such a peace, Moscow would have to agree to meaningful guarantees.
Trump’s more serious advisers understand this. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen a truly sound policy over the past two and a half months.
In a broader sense, we can speak of two prophets, George Orwell and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom warned that when America steps back from the global stage, it is not China that fills the vacuum, but chaos. We now find ourselves facing the growing risk of a major full-scale conflict, potentially even a nuclear one. The global system of deterrence, the traditional structure that kept the world in check, appears to be cracking. This is no longer just about Russian aggression. Iran has struck a deal with Russia, and Russia with North Korea. Across Europe, there is a deep sense of unease. Everyone is trying to move quickly, because it is increasingly clear that the world’s authoritarian regimes are nearly ready to act.
It’s obvious that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are acting together on a somewhat regular basis. They want to undermine the American position globally.
I believe that the institutions the United States created or helped build after World War II — starting with NATO and including the Bretton Woods economic system, our evolving alliances with Japan and South Korea, and our strategic partnership with Israel — have all promoted global stability.
There’s no question that some influential voices in the administration have no understanding of how important these structures are. They are naive and guided by unrealistic ideals.
At the same time, there are also people in the administration who understand this perfectly well. Yes, some steps have been taken away from the systems we built, but those steps have been limited. Just enough to make people nervous. Just enough to encourage America’s adversaries like China and Russia — but not enough to give those adversaries a victory.
So again, we’ll have to see how this plays out. I wish I could simply say that the smart people around Trump will ultimately win the policy debate.
I think there’s better than a 50 percent chance that they will. But it’s not a sure thing.
And what exactly are the Russians in Washington proposing? I was struck by how openly and cynically Witkoff spoke about his communication with the Kremlin. There was also Kirill Dmitriev’s visit. It seems clear that the Russians were offering something — a sweeping, strategic proposal. I would like to believe that the broader expert community understands the contours of these Russian proposals and what kind of world order Moscow is trying to reshape.
As I’ve already said, Moscow’s national security doctrine labels the United States as Russia’s principal adversary. Many senior Russian officials share that view. There is a certain naivety among some of the president’s advisers. I believe you mentioned one of them, who somehow thinks we can have a reset with Russia. That was Obama’s disastrous idea.
This group around Trump mocks Obama for being weak, and Biden as well, yet they are now following the same failed example by flirting with a reset. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.
Kirill Dmitriev is certainly an effective advocate for this kind of policy, especially with people like Witkoff. But pursuing a reset would be deeply damaging to the United States and to President Trump’s reputation if he were to go down that path.
This is all playing out. And Washington is still unclear what the ultimate policy will be, but they are clearly entertaining this possibility.
Everything is changing so quickly. How do we navigate a situation where so many documents were signed, so many promises made, and so many assurances given, only for everything to shift? What was once clear and certain has turned murky, even contradictory. What should Ukrainians do now, when what was white suddenly appears black, or at best, grey?
I have had a very clear position on what American policy should be in response to Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine. That applies under Biden, under Obama, under Trump the first time, and now with Trump the second time. The best policy would be for the United States to arm Ukraine so it can drive the Russians out of most, if not all, Ukrainian territory. That could have been done starting under Obama. It could have been done at any time since the large-scale invasion.
Biden did provide major support to Ukraine, but he was intimidated by Putin’s nuclear threats. Although Biden never said he didn’t want Ukraine to reclaim all its territory, he made it impossible for Ukraine to do so.
Trump’s position has been different. He has said he wants a durable peace, but it must involve serious compromise from both sides. I have already described that approach. I do not think it is the best policy, but I believe it would be a sound one. Unfortunately, Trump has not pursued that policy in a consistent or conscientious way.
This is largely because there are naive advisers around him who do not care about Ukraine and do not understand that if the United States were to abandon Ukraine, it would be viewed by the world and especially by our adversaries as a sign of American weakness.
That is why I believe that in the end, Trump may still follow through on the policy he stated when he took office: to ensure a durable peace. But right now, we are not seeing that. And that is a serious problem.