Three years after Russia invaded Ukraine, the U.S. is now aggressively pushing both countries to reach a ceasefire deal. But critics of the Trump administration as well as most European nations are asking: At what price to Ukraine?
Earlier this month, President Trump, who has falsely suggested Ukraine started the war, spoke privately by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin on a series of topics including Ukraine. And U.S. and Russian officials last week held preliminary discussions on peace talks without a representative from Ukraine present.
The U.S. has proposed a deal in which Ukraine would divert $500 billion in rare-earth mineral profits to Washington in exchange for aid but without a security guarantee. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, falsely attacked by Trump as a “dictator,” has thus far refused to sign the accord.
On Monday, the Trump administration voted against a United Nations resolution condemning Russian aggression against Ukraine and calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces. U.S. diplomats introduced a resolution calling solely for an end to the conflict. Both measures passed.
In this edited conversation held before the U.N. vote, Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s chief diplomat from 2020 to 2024 and now a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, shares his views on the war and Ukraine’s future.
In December, you said you remained optimistic about Ukraine’s position. How do you feel today?
Less optimistic. I personally, and Ukraine as a whole, we underestimated the pressure that Trump and his administration will begin to exert on Ukraine given his desire to strike a quick deal. We believed, based on our experience with President Trump during his first tenure, that he would be more balanced toward both Ukraine and Russia in this under these circumstances.
French President Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, plan to bring a proposal to the White House this week that would install 30,000 European troops in Ukraine to provide security, with the U.S. providing only backup support, possibly in the form of air and missile defense. If it comes to fruition, would that be enough to deter Russia?
Look at the size of Ukraine. Disperse 30,000 troops across the map, and you will see that it’s peanuts. The front line in the Russia-Ukraine war is essentially 3,000 kilometers [about 1,860 miles] long. Thirty thousand troops will not suffice to cover that line and that means they cannot serve as peacekeepers in the traditional understanding of this concept because they will not be able to stand between Russian and Ukrainian armies to prevent them from fighting.
So, we should not consider this idea as a real means of guaranteeing disengagement of forces. It is not a security guarantee; it is not even a security assurance, nor a stabilization force. It is just reassuring presence on the ground. Is the presence of such troops a good idea in principle? It is. Is it a real means of stopping the war? No, it isn’t.
We have to be realistic. Ukraine’s army is 1 million strong. About 400,000 troops are actively engaged in combat on both sides. Thirty thousand troops, even supported by air cover, can change very little. The second thing is that Russia most likely will be vehemently against this idea because, in their eyes, it will be the legitimization of at least some NATO armies on the ground in Ukraine. So, it’s a good idea, but I just don’t see how it can help to end the war.
Dmytro Kuleba.
Photo by Jodi Hilton
Trump officials are pressing Ukraine to agree to turn over a share of profits from Ukraine’s rare-earth mineral deposits in exchange for aid as part of ceasefire negotiations. Zelensky has said he won’t sign such a deal. Does he have much choice at this juncture?
Ukraine’s room for maneuvering is extremely narrow, to say the least. The main problem here is purely diplomatic. Russia has many gestures it can make to please or to engage with Trump and to show their constructiveness which are unrelated to the war itself. They released a U.S. citizen, which is, of course, welcome. This allowed President Trump to project strength and to demonstrate that a new attitude toward Russia pays off.
Ukraine does not have that luxury. Everything Ukraine has to offer or can do is related to the war. This puts Russia and Ukraine in completely different positions vis-a-vis Trump and his administration. This is the problem that Zelensky is facing.
Two hundred something drones attacked Ukraine just a couple of days ago. Did we hear a word of condemnation coming from the United States? No, we didn’t. This is what Putin will continue to do. He will continue to do something for Trump that does not slow down the pace of his aggression against Ukraine, and Zelensky will continue to fight against the unfair agreement without having anything else to suggest to Trump as an alternative. This is kind of the deadlock that Ukraine is currently in.
Will or should Zelensky step down if it brings about an acceptable agreement, as he’s offered?
We should be very clear: Ceasefire is not the end of the war. To the credit of the Trump administration, they have a very reasonable goal to establish a ceasefire as potentially a precondition to ending the war. But they’re only focused on this.
The reality is that establishing ceasefire is possible, but very difficult. Making it hold would be close to impossible, and ending the war is not looming on the horizon. Two completely different strategic goals.
Trump wants a ceasefire as a manifestation of his strengths and ability to strike the most difficult, challenging deal. Putin may agree to that, but his strategic goal of defeating Ukraine will remain unchanged. How to prevent him from doing that is not where the thinking of U.S. and Western strategists is — they did not really go that far. If, by the way, the notion of the West is still relevant at all.
Territory, money, and membership for Ukraine in NATO are the main issues on the negotiating table. What’s the best outcome Ukraine can hope for if the U.S. won’t provide further support?
Although I’m not a part of the government anymore, I’m still Ukrainian, and I cannot dwell on what kind of concessions Ukraine could make because that would simply weaken Ukraine’s position.
If Ukraine could be assured that there is a chance that putting NATO and territory issues on hold without legally recognizing that they are off the table, and Putin would stick to that agreement, that could work.
The problem is that everything we know about Russia suggests that it’s not going to stick to its word, and it will use any kind of pause or break just to prepare for the new attempt to destroy Ukraine. The issue is there is zero trust in Putin. Trump and his people manifest their belief that Putin can be trusted, and an agreement is possible, but everything we know about him suggests the opposite.
Would it be wise for Ukraine to consider ceding portions of its territory to Russia in exchange for an end to hostilities?
Putin’s goal remains unchanged. He wants the whole of Ukraine. He will ask President Trump: Who can guarantee that four years later the U.S. position will not reverse? There is no such guarantee that President Trump can give him. He can be promised that Ukraine will not be in NATO, but if Ukraine continues to exist as an independent nation, in Putin’s view, Ukraine will still end up in NATO five, 10 years later.
This is what this whole war is about. In dealing with another nation, it is fundamentally important to understand what its end goal is. The problem is that Putin knows what his end goal is, and the West doesn’t.
There is nothing easier in diplomacy than drawing lines on someone else’s map, deciding someone else’s destiny. We’ve seen it so many times in human history and also applied to Ukraine. Unfortunately, drawing these lines with a country that wishes to destroy another country is not a solution because it’s not going to hold. This is the fundamental issue: What will make the deal hold, if it is achieved at all?
Source link
