The conversation between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin was inevitable. It seems like a rite of passage in international relations, one that would eventually shape the trajectory of numerous geopolitical dynamics.
However, the description that Mr. Trump provided following their call may have brought a wave of concern for Ukraine. It’s hard to find any silver lining in the details he shared.
Indeed, the implications are stark.
The dynamics of U.S.-Russia relations appear to have shifted with this exchange, raising alarms in Kyiv. The presidency, once considered a staunch ally, now feels cast aside, as if the central narrative of peace negotiations has been rewritten without it.
Rather than engage with allies and partners, Mr. Trump positioned Mr. Putin as a potential collaborator. “I want to thank President Putin for his time and effort with respect to this call,” he conveyed in a tone that seemed to dismiss the complexities at stake.
Interestingly, the two leaders even discussed the possibility of visiting one another’s countries—an idea that, up until now, might have felt far-fetched. Yet, the image of Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump casually walking through the White House rose garden is becoming increasingly plausible.
The sequence of Mr. Trump’s phone calls raises eyebrows. He prioritized contacting Mr. Putin instead of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. What message does this send about America’s priorities? The implication is clear: the United States may pivot towards addressing Russia’s stringent conditions over supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty.
In a concerning twist, Mr. Zelensky learned of the phone call’s contents second-hand—a reminder that Ukraine’s agency in this discussion appears diminished.
On the same day, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth addressed the situation in Europe, laying out the administration’s perspective on Ukraine. He emphasized the desire for a “sovereign and prosperous Ukraine,” accompanied by essential security guarantees. Yet, the optimism swiftly dissipated.
Hegseth delivered three striking pronouncements: restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is deemed unrealistic; NATO membership is similarly an unattainable goal; and lastly, American troops will not be dispatched as peacekeepers. This no-nonsense assessment casts a long shadow over Ukraine’s hopes for stability.
Any peacekeeping possibilities will shy away from NATO’s protective umbrella, specifically Article 5, which stipulates that an attack on one member is an attack on all. In essence, while the rhetoric may flutter towards support, the reality suggests that the U.S. seeks to minimize its involvement once peace prevails.
Is this a moment where Europe is being nudged to shoulder the primary responsibility for peacekeeping? The task ahead is monumental—imagine policing a 1,300 km demilitarized frontline with tens of thousands of troops. It’s a logistical and diplomatic challenge that must not be underestimated.
Mr. Trump, however, still has the potential for deals in mind, particularly eyeing Ukraine’s vast mineral reserves, valued at an astounding $500 billion. Rumor has it that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was recently in Kyiv, fine-tuning a draft focused on how these resources could contribute to Ukraine’s security.
Tomorrow, President Zelensky will engage with U.S. Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, an annual congregation where global leaders converge to deliberate defense challenges. It should come as no surprise that the war in Ukraine will commandeer significant attention this year.
Additionally, U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, will be present, poised to consult with European allies about plans moving forward. This meeting represents an opportunity, albeit one shrouded in uncertainty.
Yesterday’s developments must have been music to Mr. Putin’s ears. Russia’s demands are being echoed in the highest corridors of power. Mr. Hegseth reiterated significant conditions: neither NATO membership for Ukraine nor a return to 2014 borders are on the table.
Putin’s vision extends towards the full annexation of four eastern Ukrainian regions: Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Even if Russian forces don’t occupy all of these areas, they remain determined to exert control over the entirety. This creates a crucial juncture for Ukraine and its European allies to challenge such aspirations in pursuit of a fair settlement.
Before the end of the month, Mr. Kellogg is slated to visit Kyiv to further discuss peace strategies. Given the nuances and tone that surfaced during the Trump-Putin exchange, it wouldn’t be unthinkable for Mr. Kellogg to travel to Moscow afterward. Would such a dialogue foster understanding or heighten tensions?
In one decisive moment, Mr. Trump appears to have recalibrated U.S. policy on the ongoing war in Ukraine. For the time being, Ukraine may have to accept the harsh reality of losing nearly one-fifth of its territory. Yet, amid these grim forecasts, there lies a glimmer of hope: the prospect of increased American investment and ongoing military support.
As European leaders convene in Munich, they will undoubtedly press for a central role in these vital peace discussions, echoing the calls of Ukraine itself—the nation at the heart of this conflict.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring
