The meeting at Jeddah was, as the Foreign Ministry said, not an easy one, and looking ahead, there is an expectation for a follow-up move from the Russian Federation. So far, it is difficult to understand from the signals sent by the Kremlin as to whether it will accept the proposal to cease fire for at least 30 days and meaningfully negotiate something further. And what next? What if it turns out that those whom the United States is persistently trying to reconcile will not have common points for discussion or will have hidden plans up their sleeves?
Oleksii Haran, professor of political science at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and scientific advisor to the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, shared his thoughts on how the situation could develop and whether Ukraine has restored good relations and understanding with its long-standing overseas partner.
THERE CAN STILL BE PRESSURE AND BLACKMAIL
- Mr. Oleksii, what makes our delegation so satisfied with the outcomes of the meeting in Saudi Arabia? It was only about the proposal sent to Russia, there is no response yet...
- We do not know everything that happened behind the scenes, but we are certainly satisfied with the resumption of military aid and intelligence support, because we managed to get out of this challenging situation. In Donald Trump's concept, it looked like this: Russia wants peace (because I trust Putin), Ukraine does not want it, so it was cut off from aid. It was inevitable that we had to go to this meeting and try to change the approaches used by the American side. Obviously enough, we have succeeded in this. And then serious fundamental issues will arise that will need to be resolved.
- What can happen next if there is no common denominator for negotiations with the Russian Federation? We do not believe that Russia will agree to a compromise, because for Moscow, a ceasefire is a concession in itself. And the demands have not changed since the days of "Istanbul"...
- Much will depend on Trump. By the time he had been elected US president, Russia was already economically exhausted, and it started to experience difficulties on the Ukrainian battlefields again. The termination of American aid to Ukraine led to a change in the situation, which Russia took advantage of, in particular, in the direction of Kursk. According to Trump's logic, we have already threatened Ukraine and brought it to the negotiating table, now we are going to the Russians. Should they be not be ready to negotiate - we will apply tough measures to them as well (more sanctions, etc.). But will Trump actually do this?.. So far, it looked like he was more inclined to support Putin.
Then Russia, I suppose, will start putting forward its traditional demands. Perhaps it will drag out the truce: now Moscow is counting on putting pressure on us on certain fronts, in particular, in Kursk. The Russians may insist that the annexation of Ukrainian regions is enshrined in their constitution – they say, we are ready for negotiations, but let the Ukrainians leave “our regions”. Debates on guarantees will also continue. Russia will not back down from demands for Ukraine’s neutrality, a reduction of the army size and armaments. I believe it highly likely that it will also raise the issue of the status of the [Russian] language and [Orthodox] church in Ukraine, federalization of Ukraine and suchlike. That is, it will set inflated demands for bargaining.
How tough will Donald Trump be because of such intransigence? How will he interpret such behavior? We do not know. At one time, the US declared its intention to help Ukraine return at least part of the occupied territories. And now Trump can say: ok, do not recognize them legally as part of Russia (because Ukraine and the international community will never accept this), but admit that they will de facto remain under the control of the Russian Federation.
The issue of guarantees will inevitably arise, the Russian Federation will demand that Ukraine’s non-aligned status be fixed legislatively. Will Trump pressurize us on this issue? Will he be ready to at least guarantee the ceasefire is respected? And how is he going to make sure this to happen? Much will depend on Europe's stance on that matter.
- The current US administration seems to be more interested in bringing relations with the Russian Federation back on track rather than achieving a just peace. So why shouldn't the US continue to pressurize and blackmail us with aid?
- Then it will turn out that the aggressor got everything it wanted. And how will Donald Trump look in the eyes of the world community then? In the eyes of China, North Korea, and Iran? He will look a weakling. To Europe, the US has already demonstrated that it is no longer a reliable partner. What will happen to the system of alliances in Asia when Trump finds himself in the position of a loser? And in the United States itself, Trump's opponents will believe that the president has given up everything. Another thing is how Trump himself is going to make it into an argument... But he wants to go down in history as a winner, not a weakling.
- It so happened that, immediately after the US hit breaks on the flow of aid to Ukraine, we started facing problems at the frontline, we lost our “trump card” – the bridgehead in Kursk…
- But they still can’t take Pokrovsk, they can’t squeeze us out of Donbas either. There are signs suggesting that the Russian forces are getting exhausted. However, we should also be realistic: they have been attacking in the Kursk region for a long time, and now they have waited for the time assistance from the US was put on a pause button. Previously, Pokrovsk was the priority, but once negotiations loomed on the horizon, the focus was shifted towards knocking the political trump card out of our hands. By engaging the North Koreans into the war, Putin is showing how limitless his human resource is, and we can only counter this by being seriously superior in weaponry. Probably, if this superiority were there, we could have kept the Kursk bridgehead.
- Until now, our undisputed trump card has been the support of the US. But what about now? To what extent has the United States been lost as a reliable ally? Despite the resumption of aid flow…
- Not only us, but also Europe and other countries can no longer rely on the United States as they did before. US support has always been important, but it would be wrong to say that we can achieve nothing without it. The show-of-force massive attack with drones on Moscow and Russian regions on March 11 was a signal (risky but strong) on the eve of the meeting in Saudi Arabia: we have the reserves to deal very painful blows to Russia.
True, more US engagement is needed, but Europe seems to have come to its senses and is planning to provide really significant assistance. Finally, a credit line has been launched that will be repaid with windfall proceeds from frozen Russian assets; the UK will manufacture missiles for us worth as much as $2 billion, etc.
But we ourselves are our own reliance. The future will be largely contingent not so much on Trump as on our willingness to continue the fight. And on whether the Russians will succeed in destabilizing the situation in Ukraine.
UKRAINE NEEDS TO BE UNITED, EUROPE IS PROGRESSIVELY MOBILIZING
- Regarding destabilization. If a ceasefire is reached and it comes to elections…
- Ukrainians do not want elections now, they understand the situation. Recent polls showed that 60 percent of the of citizens are against holding such elections (this figure may fluctuate, of course) precisely because this would upset stability.
- Okay, but it is unclear how a long-lasting peace can be reached if we do not agree to things that are unacceptable to us?
- Elections have nothing to do with durable peace. Indeed, Trump may still stick to the idea of continuing to pressurize Zelensky. Whether it will be successful will depend on the Ukrainian policy-making community’s ability to get united. For that matter, let's say it will be very difficult to form a government of national unity, and even a technocratic one too. But if I were the President, following events at the Oval Office, I would immediately return those three TV channels – Espresso, Pryamiy and Channel 5 – back to the space of digital broadcasting. This would not change anything for the authorities fundamentally – the main tools for their criticism have long since moved to the domain of social networks. But if he did this, he would immediately repel all accusations of being a “dictator”, would show that he is ready for national unity. This would be a win-win move.
And if we talk about the conditions for a sustainable peace – the guarantees may be different. NATO membership is not shining for us, but the Russian Federation is actually rejecting the idea of a peacekeeping force being deployed in Ukraine. What if the peacekeepers are fired upon, there are dead casualties, and then the Russians themselves will organize a campaign in the EU countries to withdraw the peacekeeping contingent? Potential options could include, as Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer suggested, taking control of Ukrainian skies, deploying air defenses and aviation outside its borders, but with continuing supplies of the most modern weaponry to Ukraine.
My approach to this situation is exactly like that. It is a shame if the occupied territories remain under Russian control for a long time, but all that means is that Ukraine has persevered, we remain to be a sovereign state and have no intention to disarm ourselves to please the enemy, but instead will even continue to build up our weapons arsenals and move towards the EU membership.
- Can it be the case that the European leaders go back on their intentions? There is a fear that, when the average European voters read from the news that a ceasefire has arrived, they will ask themselves the question as to why spend budgets on armaments while continuing to spend on Ukraine at the same time...
- This can start at any moment, Russia has played and is playing on this perfectly well. But let’s analyze the situation at least in key countries. There has been a change of government in Great Britain, the Labor Party came to power - they have a very strong policy on Ukraine and it has become even tougher. The Bundestag elections in Germany have taken place – yes, the Alternative for Germany came in second, but the CDU/CSU and the Social Democratic Party are forming a new government, and we already understand that this government’s policy on Russia will be tough. The French president will continue in office until 2027. Obviously enough, Marine Le Pen will seek power again, but her position can be somewhat adapted by that time. She has already modified it, condemning Donald Trump’s “cruel” decision to cut off military aid to Ukraine.
Democracy, like the nation, is an everyday plebiscite, and threats to us will arise constantly from different countries. But this is no reason to throw ashes on our heads. The Russian propaganda will intensify its attacks, saying that the United States has abandoned everyone, and that it is going to be difficult without them, and so you would better give up... But the problem with Russia is that it wants everything at once, this is impossible to hide, and there is a strong probability that, at some point, the Russians will demonstrate absolute inability to negotiate, and Trump will slam his fist on the table. Still and all, he would like, of course, to use certain agreements with Russia as a global actor regarding the Iranian nuclear program, the Middle East settlement, and restraining arms race. But if Trump became convinced that the Russian Federation seeks to radically change the balance of power in Europe and globally, and it is impossible to tear it away from China (and I do not think that this will be possible), then he may change his stance.
Actually, the resumption of arms supplies and intelligence support in itself signifies a change in his stance. Just recall how we perceived our situation a week ago. There have been worse situations in our history. But where is the Russian Empire, where is the USSR, and where are we? So, let's do our job: provide more support to our military and preserve internal unity.
Interviewed by Tetyana Nehoda, Kyiv