by Dmitry Likhtarik
[REGNUM] Speaking at his first press conference after his victory at the Mar-a-Lago residence on December 16, US President-elect Donald Trump made more resonant statements revealing his position on the Ukrainian case.
For example, he criticized the Biden administration's decision to allow Ukraine to launch long-range strikes on Russian territory, stressed that it could take a century to restore what was destroyed, and expressed his belief in the need for a deal to end the nearly three-year war. And at the same time, he admitted that he did not invite Volodymyr Zelensky to his inauguration in January.
But before analyzing the statements on Ukraine, it is necessary to make a number of important observations.
First, Trump’s negotiating style (apparently borrowed from his business experience) suggests that he sets his own framework for his negotiating partner’s theses and tries not to let him out of this framework in the future.
Let's explain this using a specific situation: he reported receiving signals from Kiev about the desire to reach a settlement of the conflict with Russia. As we understand, this is not a completely correct interpretation of either Zelensky's position, expressed by him at a meeting in September, when the Republican was still a presidential candidate, or the messages of the delegation of the head of the Ukrainian presidential office, Andriy Yermak , who recently visited Washington to meet with Trump's inner circle.
Official Kyiv is indeed asking for help in "achieving a just peace" from the "collective West" and from the new US president in particular. But by "just peace" they mean a return to the borders of February 2022 (until recently - to the borders of 1991), as a tool for achieving it - military and financial assistance, and the mechanism for guaranteeing post-conflict security - Kyiv's membership in NATO.
Trump, however, without a second thought, separated Kyiv's goals and means, taking on the former, but with his own tools. And as the president-elect stated at that same press conference, he has already made "a little progress" in the settlement and is "working hard" to end the conflict.
The second important point is that the White House team is now a close-knit group of people who are absolutely loyal to their leader. They act in a completely coordinated manner (at least because until January 20, 2025, appointments to all posts except for the White House Chief of Staff are de facto, not de jure). And the disclosure of a number of nuances of Trump's position, for one political reason or another, is taken on by his associates.
Thus, the future presidential adviser on national security Michael Walz in an interview with CBS News repeated his thesis from the time of the discussion of the aid package for Ukraine in Congress earlier this year that “a blank check (unlimited aid) is not a strategy.”
Moreover, in the same interview he posed a purely American question point-blank: " What does success look like in accordance with our interests? How do we end the conflict?" The word "we" is key here - obviously, "success in accordance with Ukrainian interests" is not on the agenda of Trump's team at all.
And the third point. Trump's team, in this case acting within the framework of the good old American political tradition, states its position and/or launches "trial balloons" through "leaks" in the press.
On the day of the press conference in Mar-a-Lago, American military expert Ryan Menon expressed the opinion in a column for The New York Times that Trump is unlikely to agree to provide Ukraine with security guarantees from the United States, and Kiev will not consider any coalition without the participation of the Americans to be reliable.
The expert points out that the president-elect “is seeking not only to end the conflict without making any promises to protect Ukraine, but also to reduce America’s security commitments in Europe as a whole.” Menon also believes that Kiev’s admission to NATO is unrealistic.
As for the last thesis, it can be found in direct form among Trump’s closest allies: Vice President-elect J.D. Vance , nominees for the positions: Secretary of State Marco Rubio , National Security Advisor Michael Walz , Senior Advisor for Trade and Industry Peter Navarro , and US Ambassador to Beijing David Pardue .
The key moment in switching from Europe to China is closing the “Ukrainian case”, and as quickly as possible.
Thus, at the time of the press appearance, Trump's positions on various aspects of his vision for the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict were already quite clearly defined and he added only a few strokes to this picture. Again, acting in his usual manner.
Most importantly, the US President-elect called on Zelensky to prepare for an agreement to end the conflict. This message was “paired” with Trump’s statement that he might reconsider the decision of the current President Joe Biden to authorize long-range missile strikes deep into Russia.
According to him, the United States should not have allowed Ukraine to carry out such strikes, the decision was again called "bad and stupid." And the other day, Trump gave a similar assessment in an interview with Time magazine, specifying that Zelensky made this decision with Biden's approval:
"I think the most dangerous thing right now is what's happening when Zelensky decided, with the approval, I assume, of the president (Biden. - Ed.), to start firing missiles at Russia. I think that's a serious escalation. I think that's a stupid decision."
As we can see, Trump is demonstrating a willingness to act with respect to Kyiv using the American version of the carrot and stick method, where the "carrot" is the absence of a "stick". And his most significant reaction was the absence of even a hint of a positive answer to the question of whether Ukraine should cede part of its territory to Russia?
Trump responded that he would let them know after his first meeting with the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, but added that “ there is not a single [whole] building there (in the territories that have been transferred to the Russian Federation. — Ed.) , and people will not return there,” and that it could take a hundred years to restore the destroyed cities. Translated into common language, this means: let the territories be restored and maintained by the one who actually owns them. That is, Russia.
It was a fortunate coincidence that on December 16, White House Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby made a statement that, in the opinion of the Biden administration, Zelensky should himself determine the terms of negotiations to end the conflict. But Kiev understands perfectly well that everything they say about their terms of participation in the negotiations under Biden could be used against them by Trump on January 20.
And in the current situation, one of the most adequate Ukrainian experts, economist Alexey Kushch, recommends that the government take the geopolitical product called “the world named after Trump” even for five years – that is, for the period of his term, after which the situation will change.
"Right now, either the key existential risk of the existence of Western civilization in the 21st century or the track of a safe future for the next 30 years is being formed. In the first case, the Baltic-Black Sea arc will literally become "bloodlands", in the second, it will plunge into a geopolitical sleep for 30 years. Now there is a key struggle for the basic Eurasian vector of inter-civilization movement of goods, services, investments and technologies. It will pass either to the south of the Black Sea or to the north. This explains the development of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and Ukraine," the expert notes.
In any case, with peace, Ukraine will find itself in a better place and in a better condition in 2030 than during the war. And what choice the Kiev authorities will make will be clear in the coming weeks.