Assessing Trump’s Ukraine Diplomacy

US president Donald Trump personally is carrying out diplomatic moves to try to find a way to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. After hosting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Voludmir Zellinsky, as well as British, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, NATO and European Commission, in Washington for more talks.

In the latest episode of the FP Live, which was broadcast on Monday morning, August 18, she spoke with two experts who closely followed the conflict and its history: Andrea Kendall Taylor, a former CIA analyst that focuses on Russia, Sergey Radchenko, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and author of its author To operate the world: the attempt of the Cold War of Karmlin for the Global Authority. Subscribers can watch the full discussion on the video box on this page. The following here is an intense version and lightly editing it.

US President Donald Trump personally is carrying out diplomatic moves to try to find a way to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. After hosting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Voludmir Zellinsky, as well as British, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, NATO and European Commission, in Washington for more talks.

In the latest episode of the FP Live, which was broadcast on Monday morning, August 18, she spoke with two experts who closely followed the conflict and its history: Andrea Kendall Taylor, a former CIA analyst that focuses on Russia, Sergey Radchenko, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and author of its author To operate the world: the attempt of the Cold War of Karmlin for the Global Authority. Subscribers can watch the full discussion on the video box on this page. The following here is an intense version and lightly editing it.

Ravi Agrawal: Andrea, I am surprised by the Trump image that I received on Friday on the craftsmanship red carpet, and applauded his hands. Putin, of course, the war criminal. We know that he and Trump cared about the value of symbolism. Think about Friday scenes.

Andrea Kendall Taylor: They were nothing great. There was such a competition related to the visit. We were supposed to see the way Trump welcomed the Russian leader. Even people who do not see a problem in communicating and using diplomacy during crises, realize that you do not have to praise, applause and celebrate the arrival of the war criminal. So that was really shocking.

I am already in Europe now. Many European colleagues also found horrific photos. It truly undermines US leadership perceptions. She called for the place where the United States is heading and its reliability as a partner. So I sent a shock through our alliance.

Ra: Sergey, you are very steeped in Soviet history. A lot of Alaska’s summit felt like an explosion from the past.

Sergey Radchenko: Ravi, he did so, and he was intended from the perspective of Russia. Putin went to Alaska to stand in glory next to the American president. This, of course, is something famous for it. He wanted to admit equality in America for a long time. It is clear that the fact that the Europeans were not represented there gave Putin Pretj and confidence to tell his home audience, “They cannot avoid us anymore, and Russia stands here in glory.” There is a historical tradition that belongs to the Cold War players, where meetings with American leaders are an opportunity to raise their country and show them as one of the great powers in the world.

Ra: Andrea, at the press conference on Friday, was saying that he did not take Trump or Putin the questions of the journalists, and their statements were mysterious. But we now know that they were unable to agree to a ceasefire as a first step and talked about going directly to a peace deal. Meanwhile, Putin continued his attacks on Ukraine on Monday morning. Did Trump played here?

AKT: Without a doubt. The worst concerns of the analytical community appear to be playing now. For beginners, the competition we talked about was. Putin was able to secure this meeting on the American soil with the American leader. He stood on the stage during the press conference and made his view of the war, its origins and causes, without any refutation from the American president.

One thing that I am afraid will be more than that is that it has successfully led a wedge between the United States on the one hand, Europe and Ukraine on the other hand by restoring the motivation to the Ukrainians. One of Putin’s leading goals to this summit was to appear pragmatic, as if he was ready to conclude a deal, then the Ukrainians framing as a barrier to peace.

It is worth noting that there were no concessions from the Russian side. No pressure, no penalties. It was really a great success for Putin. The risk of the United States would apply pressure to Ukraine and also bought more time to try this war. It was a great victory for the Russians, a great loss for Ukraine, and a great loss for the Europeans. It was the setback of a relationship across the Atlantic.

Ra: Sergey, when Putin said the only way to reach a settlement in his Friday speech is to eliminate all “initial roots” of the conflict and consider “legitimate fears” of Russia, and you remembered your book, To operate the world. These can be the words of Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev.

SR: It is very typical in Soviet history. The Soviets felt that they were entitled to obtain what they called legitimate attention in Europe. During the Cold War, when the Soviets invaded Hungary or Czechoslovakia, the American reaction was primarily what was for you. What is different in Ukraine is that since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Europeans and Americans retreated, saying that this is not in the field of Russia’s interest. Of course, the Ukrainians showed themselves on the basis that they could carry the Russian aggression. This also refutes Putin’s allegations.

But he tries to return to this, which is why he pays Ukraine’s nets in NATO. This is one of its basic conditions: not to allow Ukraine to enter NATO. Based on his reaction after Alaska, Trump is acceptable to that. But Russia is also trying to impose certain types of laws on Ukraine, around the Orthodox Church, around the Russian language. Putin wants to recruit Ukraine, so he could not resist more Russian aggression. This would effectively set Ukraine standards that are not necessarily annexed by Russia but dated Russia. Something like Belarus. This is what Putin wants.

Ra: Andrea, one of the details that appeared is that Putin wants to claim all Donbas – an area that includes Donetsk and Luhansk, which is still Ukraine controls about 2,500 square miles. If Ukraine abandons it, Russia will be in a unique position to attack the line.

AKT: It is a ridiculous request. Putin asks about an area that he was unable to take it militarily. The Ministry of Defense in the United Kingdom put out A really interesting piece recently says that if Russia will continue to gain gains this year, it will take four years from Russia to take the rest of the Donbas.

There is no way that Ukraine can agree to waive these lands without very strong security guarantees from the United States. There is also Ukrainian support for Zelinski to waive this area. It will have a catastrophic impact on the military morale. Can you imagine that the Ukrainian forces tell that they should see this area voluntarily for which they were fighting and losing a big life? Therefore, in order to think about delivering that land, a decision that the Omouris can only take, they need to obtain at least security guarantees so that Russia does not attack more.

Ra: Sergei, Andrea pointed to the Ukrainian feelings here. As much as we can measure Russian feelings, how did they see Friday’s summit? How do they think about Russia’s options to go forward?

SR: You have to separate the views of the expert community and the general public. The general public is affected by taking advertising. It seems that it is generally supportive. Although I should do this small reservation: polling in authoritarian countries is very difficult. No one will tell you that they oppose war. However, from my notes and conversations, the Russian public is excited about this. They are not happy with the economic situation, but they see that the war is moving in their direction with all the sacrifices that have already been made. They seem to be more ready to sacrifice.

Now, in terms of elites, things are a little more complicated. There is a real enthusiasm between the commercial elites that may actually end the war. They are looking forward to the possibility of lifting sanctions, cooperation with Americans, etc. There is also the security apparatus and various regular thought tanks with them. Some of these people believe that regardless of what Russia is doing, the United States cannot be trusted and that Russia must adhere to it and continue in Ukraine because this serves the long -term Russian interests.

Ra: Andrea, what should be Ukraine’s strategy in the next few days and weeks?

AKT: I am very tense about what will happen in the White House today. I wondered whether Zelensky could take a page approximately from the Russian leader and present himself as practical, interested in a deal. It is a strategy “Yes, but”, as your own conditions that must be addressed before they reach the deal. I am very worried that Trump will use this as an opportunity to increase pressure on Ukraine. The best that Zelensky can do is trying to slow down the process and provide the time of European allies to the vehicle circuit so that they can increase their capabilities if the United States withdraws support at the end. He will have to walk on a tight rope.

We all understand that Zelinski cannot publicly contradict Trump. But at the same time, he must abide by his hero and do what is appropriate for the Ukrainians. Thus, the question, then, is where the Europeans come out in this? And I hope they remain behind Zelinsky, as it seems.

Ra: Sergey, given that Putin is chasing history, by the madness of greatness, by the need to admit that many of his predecessors were, what is the best way for European leaders and the United States to play in that greatness?

SR: Putin is considering historically. He thinks about the long term. He thinks about himself as a collection of Russian lands. He feels that his responsibility in Russian history is to restore Ukraine under the wing of Russia. The question to be asked is whether this is acceptable for Europeans and Americans. If you ask this question to Trump, you may not care. If I ask this question to the Europeans, I think they will care.

So the question is, well, what are you doing to prevent that? The only answer for the Europeans is to play more strict, but my fear is that they will not be able to combine a strategy to move forward already. They may work together, but in reality, they still continue to search across the Atlantic Ocean to find out what Trump will say.

Ra: Sergey, you are also closely following China. We told us how Beijing was watching the meetings in Alaska on Friday and how you watched all the diplomatic maneuvers that we will see on Monday.

SR: The Chinese are geopolitical. They do not want Russia to lose in Ukraine because they understand that if Russia loses, the West and the United States will be mainly transformed against China. Their support for Russia is the first and above all based on this geopolitical perception. You have to support Russia because this is the way you play cards and play one side against the other.

Xi Jinping and Putin participate in a vision of the world where they feel that the West has taken an unfair position and needs to drop a connection or two. For this, they are ready to work together. For this reason, I think their relationship is somewhat strong, although I will not call it an explicit alliance.