US President Donald Trump's raising the issue of elections in Ukraine, Kyiv's security concerns, and the possibility of easing sanctions against Russia have once again made Washington's approach to ending the war a subject of discussion. These steps by the White House attract attention. Possible agreements with Moscow and their impact on Ukraine's defense capabilities, the course of the war, and European security also raise serious questions. In particular, the increase in Russia's energy revenues and the possibility of Washington using support mechanisms for Kyiv as a means of pressure bring to the forefront the question of how effective the US's mediation role is.
Modern.az discussed these topics with Ukrainian political commentator Oleksiy Buryachenko.
- What changes in Washington's Ukraine policy do US President Donald Trump's raising the issue of elections in Ukraine and Kyiv's concern about not being warned in advance about Russian attacks indicate? Can these steps be considered an attempt to end the war on terms that suit US political and economic interests?
- This is, of course, about the US's own political and economic interests. The Russia-Ukraine war and the issue of supporting Ukraine are currently on the US agenda. This topic is particularly sensitive ahead of the midterm elections. Therefore, Donald Trump must demonstrate to the public that he is in control of the processes. Moreover, the only war Trump promised to end at the beginning of his presidency, even during his inauguration speech, was the Russia-Ukraine war. Subsequent events showed more that Trump prefers relations with Russia and is ready to compromise with the aggressor rather than achieve a just peace. All of this ultimately resulted in an approach that reflected the spirit of the meeting in Anchorage and led to a drop in Trump's ratings.
Unfortunately, Washington still does not understand that any agreement with Russia negatively affects Trump's ratings. Although he tries to compensate for this decline at the expense of other foreign policy directions, in the overall picture, both Trump's and the Republican Party's ratings are falling. Was Trump trying to gain political dividends from the diesel agreement? Yes. Because he presents this step not as a measure aimed at ending the Russia-Ukraine war, but primarily as an attempt to immediately solve the problem of high energy prices for US consumers. The main target here is his electorate. This is about the interests of states that traditionally vote Republican, for example, farmers in Iowa, and in this specific case, more voters in Texas. So, as you noted in your question, there is a direct political interest here. Economic interests also, of course, exist. Cooperation with Russia under sanctions, as well as with Belarus, especially in the field of potash fertilizers, creates quite profitable opportunities. These countries faced serious restrictions in carrying out their legal exports as long as sanctions were in force. Now, they are maximally interested in attracting American companies to business to ensure exports. Financially, such cooperation is consistent with the current administration's business-oriented approach. Trump also believes that this approach is justified.
- To what extent does the US currently consider Ukraine's interests?
- This raises a big question. In fact, the attempt to regulate the Russia-Ukraine war at the expense of the victim, i.e., Ukraine, is itself a wrong strategy. This strategy cannot be implemented. If Ukraine were not in this formula, Trump and Putin would undoubtedly have reached an agreement among themselves long ago. However, it is impossible to regulate, end, or simply stop the war without considering the position of one of the parties. Especially if that party is the country subjected to aggression. Moreover, this is about a state to which the US has legal obligations. Ukraine does not intend to accept Russia's terms of capitulation. Despite the pressure, the country continues its struggle and tries to protect its sovereignty. Considering all this, it can be concluded that the steps Donald Trump is currently taking regarding the aforementioned diesel agreement primarily serve the US's domestic political interests. Ahead of the midterm elections, he is trying to divert attention from the clear failure of his adventure in the Middle East. For this, an image is created that high prices are supposedly related to the Russia-Ukraine war and strikes on Russian oil refineries. However, there is no direct connection between these factors. For example, Russia's share of diesel fuel in the world market is only 2 percent, according to official data. Therefore, easing sanctions on that fuel will not significantly affect prices either in the US or globally. These are quite clear points. But Trump is trying to divert attention from the currently deadlocked Middle East direction and is taking steps he can, even at the cost of sacrificing Ukraine's interests.
Of course, a partner would not behave like this. The Kremlin also supported this rhetoric. In fact, Russia had long hoped for such a scenario. Moscow encourages Trump, so to speak, to take the easier path. However, this path, which seems easy at first glance, ultimately leads to negative electoral consequences for Trump. As for the issue of intelligence data and not being warned in advance about Russian attacks, there are certain points here too. Ukraine has always been interested in ending the war. Even achieving a ceasefire in any form was important for Kyiv. Russia's position, however, is the exact opposite: Moscow has always been interested in the continuation of the war. The main function of the US was to bring the positions of the parties closer and bring them to a common denominator. But as we see, especially ahead of the midterm elections in the US, Trump's efforts in this regard are quite unsuccessful.
Russia's massive ballistic missile attacks on Ukraine tonight and the issue of not properly transmitting intelligence data can also be seen as an attempt by the US to pressure Kyiv. The goal, so to speak, is to achieve the removal of that diesel agreement from the general framework of the negotiation process. This is a very bad situation. Because the most effective tool in Trump's hands to influence Putin in negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war was precisely long-range sanctions, primarily restrictions applied against Russian oil refineries. There are almost no other sanctions, whether applied by Europe or the US, that could have such a painful effect on Russian President Putin and the Russian economy as a whole. Thus, Trump himself weakens one of the main means of pressure on Russia. In the current situation, it is difficult to hope that the principle of “peace through strength” he put forward at the beginning of his second term will be realized. This is another trap set by Russia, and unfortunately, the US President has fallen into it.
There were two main directions that maintained the importance of cooperation between Ukraine and the US: the transmission of satellite intelligence data and the ability to purchase American weapons. Both of these capabilities are vital for Ukraine, which is fighting a daily war with Russia. But now, especially regarding the transmission of satellite intelligence data, serious questions arise as to whether the US is using these capabilities as a means of pressure on Ukraine. It is true that Trump openly stated just one day ago that the transmission of intelligence data to Ukraine continues. However, what happened raises doubts about the reliability of his words. In addition, today information about “Starlink” was also released, and the issue has already been officially raised. Ukrainian servicemen have announced a significant reduction in the data transmission speed of the “Starlink” system used for military purposes. This is about the “Starlink” service used for military purposes based on a separate agreement with the US. This is indeed a serious problem. Because the communication infrastructure of unmanned systems also relies on that military “Starlink” network. As a result, it becomes much more difficult for the Ukrainian defense forces to carry out their activities. If we summarize all this, the impression is that the current US policy, and especially the steps taken by Donald Trump, are aimed more at pressuring Ukraine than Russia. It seems that the probability of Washington using its influence over Kyiv within the framework of these agreements is higher than its pressure on Russia.
- In your opinion, has Washington's strategic approach to Ukraine already changed?
- Talking about the current administration's strategic approach is somewhat conditional. Because this approach is based more on tactical and situational decisions. The point is that it is extremely difficult to assess the US's strategy towards Ukraine. Because it is not clear whether such a strategy exists at all. Therefore, I do not rule out that the pressure currently observed against Ukraine, for example, will be replaced by pressure against Russia after the midterm elections. If Donald Trump's political and other motivations change, he may take steps in this direction. The new political configuration that will form in Congress after the midterm elections may also push him to do so. Therefore, I believe that it is simply impossible to talk about the current strategy and strategic approach of the current US administration.
- How does US leader Donald Trump want to end the war?
- First of all, I think, of course, Trump wants to end the war. He himself wants to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and declare that he is the president who ended the ninth war. But there is a specific way to do this. This formula has been voiced many times, including by Trump himself. This is about peace through strength. Without demonstrating strength against Russian President Vladimir Putin, it will not be possible to bring him to the negotiating table and achieve diplomatic success. Otherwise, Putin will continue to deceive everyone again, drag out time, and not allow Donald Trump to achieve any real results. That is why Trump should have preserved the tools he had to pressure Putin. Instead of abandoning the most effective pressure tools for the sake of achieving his situational goals, he should have used them. Trump wants to achieve certain political results by mediating the settlement of the war. But he is not yet able to do so. If the current approach continues, it does not seem convincing that he will achieve this in the near future.
If you remember, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly stated that, in his opinion, the negotiation process was deadlocked and it was impossible to achieve progress between the parties. But in fact, the process did not deadlock on its own. It was brought to this situation by mediators. As Marco Rubio noted, there are two possible scenarios ahead: either mutual escalation will occur, or one of the parties will make concessions. Now it seems that the US, as a mediator, is trying to lead the process according to the second scenario. That is, it wants to encourage Ukraine to make concessions within the framework of negotiations with Russia. The diesel agreement currently on the agenda is essentially part of this policy of concessions. Because that agreement will provide an additional flow of funds to Russia's budget, and these funds can then be directed to the purchase and production of weapons used against Ukraine. This is the path of concessions that Marco Rubio mentioned. However, such an approach will only further complicate the situation, complicate negotiations, and make it difficult to settle the war. Moreover, this policy can lead to the first scenario mentioned by Marco Rubio - escalation. Easing sanctions against Russia will, of course, further embolden Moscow. As a result, Russia will try to act more aggressively, move the conflict to a new stage of escalation, and achieve its political goals by force that it could not achieve before.
- How can decisions related to the supply of Russian energy carriers affect Moscow's economic and military potential, Ukraine's defense capabilities, and the further course of the war?
- The Russian economy is mainly export-oriented, and the main part of this export consists of energy carriers. Previously, their share in budget revenues was excessively high, even reaching 50 percent. Currently, this indicator has decreased to approximately 30 percent. Nevertheless, the export of energy carriers is still Russia's main source of income. All or the vast majority of sanctions are aimed precisely at limiting Russia's ability to sell its energy resources - oil, gas, and oil products. These measures have indeed had a serious impact and have led to the emergence of systemic, structural problems in the Russian economy. Now, easing sanctions will undoubtedly negatively affect the course of the Russia-Ukraine war. Moreover, its consequences may not be limited only to this war. As I mentioned earlier, if Putin has more financial resources at his disposal, he will not only focus on Ukraine. Russia will also try to pursue a more active policy towards NATO, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East, including Syria. Moscow's attempts to return to Africa may also intensify again. This is an extremely dangerous scenario. The long-term strategic consequences of the steps currently being taken to ease sanctions can be extremely negative for the security of both Europe and the world as a whole. The Russia-Ukraine war has long since crossed the borders of the two countries and affects almost all regions and continents in various forms. Therefore, I consider Donald Trump's decision, as US President, to be a very dangerous step.
In the current circumstances, the position of the European Union and Europe as a whole will be extremely important. Certain steps must be taken against such agreements. Ideally, these decisions should be reversed. Unfortunately, we do not currently see a unified and coordinated position of European leaders. Separate statements are being made, but these have not yet turned into a concrete and unified policy that can influence the decisions of the Trump administration. It is difficult to say how events will develop from now on. But I emphasize once again that what is happening now is strategically dangerous not only for Europe or other regions I mentioned but also for China. If Russia begins to restore its economy by increasing the sale of energy resources after the pressure of sanctions, this could also lead to a change in its dependence on China. Therefore, it is possible to find certain mechanisms and combination options that allow for the continuation of restrictive measures against Russia. This can encourage Moscow to constructive negotiations and the end of the Russia-Ukraine war. After the war ends, the parties can sit down at the table to negotiate economic cooperation, tariffs, and other issues.
However, the situation is completely different now. Shipping and trade in the Black Sea basin are virtually facing serious restrictions. The direction of the Silk Road project developed by China, which was supposed to pass through Georgian ports and the Black Sea, is also virtually blocked. The situation in the Caspian Sea is also unstable. All this shows that the situation is quite complex. Instead of approaching peace with small steps, for example, first achieving a ceasefire, then reaching agreements on security guarantees, Trump has now, so to speak, opened Pandora's box. He has even started to look inside, even if only with a glance. It is difficult to say what consequences this will lead to yet. But one thing is clear: there are no serious grounds to hope that the current steps will yield positive results.
