Trump is starting to realize Putin is the problem — U.S. diplomat Taylor

Ukraine is demonstrating that we can inflict very painful blows on the enemy. The phrase “Ukraine has no cards to play” used to strengthen Russia’s negotiating position. But now the Russians have realized that their strategic assets such as air bases and the Crimean Bridge can be targeted. How seriously could this affect the diplomatic landscape, the U.S. President, and his administration?

I think this is a major accomplishment, a significant success for Ukraine.

It demonstrates two key things. First, Ukraine’s technical and military capabilities – its ability to inflict real damage on Russia and its strategic assets. That’s critically important in terms of degrading Russia’s capacity to attack Ukraine with missiles and bombs.

Second, and equally important, this speaks to Ukraine’s determination and strategic focus, which your question alludes to. It shows that Ukraine does have leverage, that it possesses the capability and resolve to direct its efforts effectively and act with clear intent in this war.

Ukraine is determined to win, to push the Russians back. This has been demonstrated through the drone strikes on Russian aircraft and the attack on the Kerch Bridge.

General Ben Hodges, former commander of the U.S. forces in Europe, stated that it is a thankless task to constantly try to shoot down the arrows you're being attacked with. Sometimes it's better to go after the archer. This shifts the Russia–Ukraine war to a different level, and Ukraine has demonstrated that. At the same time, we understand that the enemy may also resort to various means, including nonconventional weapons, something the Russians have repeatedly threatened. How do you assess the prospects for Western unity in stopping Putin if he follows through on those threats?

Putin has made many such threats. Over the past three years during his full-scale invasion, he has repeatedly suggested that he might use unconventional weapons. Some people have taken that seriously. I do not. I do not believe there is a real risk that he would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

He knows the United States would respond. He knows Ukraine would continue to fight. He also understands that such weapons hold no real military value in this context. I do not see that as a genuine concern.

The meeting in Istanbul was preceded by an extremely successful special operation by our intelligence services — the Security Service of Ukraine struck Russian aircraft. It is unlikely that the Russians changed their negotiating position in Istanbul; for several days, they even tried to keep secret what demands they would include in the Russian part of the memorandum. According to media reports, their ambitions have not changed. In your opinion, what happened in Istanbul, and what could be the next steps?

The Russians are not serious about negotiating a ceasefire. They are not serious about negotiating a peace agreement. They have demonstrated this repeatedly.

They continue to make demands that are completely unacceptable, essentially demanding that Ukraine surrender, that Ukraine capitulate. As the attacks over the weekend clearly and emphatically show, Ukraine is not going to surrender. Ukraine will continue to fight and to fight successfully.

There is no indication at all that the Russians are engaging in serious discussions on this issue. However, when they want something, such as the return of prisoners, they are willing to negotiate. We know they are capable of negotiating. They have shown this through prisoner exchanges and the return of fallen soldiers.

And even the possibility of discussing the return of children shows that the Russians are willing to make agreements when it benefits them – such as the return of their soldiers. In those cases, they are willing to make a deal. But they are not willing to make a deal or agree on a ceasefire. This clearly shows they are not serious about a ceasefire.

They have shown that they can be serious about certain humanitarian issues. In contrast, the Ukrainians are serious about both. Ukrainians are serious about a ceasefire, and they are serious about humanitarian efforts – the return of prisoners, civilians, and children. This makes it clear where the problem lies. The obstacle to a ceasefire is Putin. The responsibility lies with the Russian side.

Putin would like to use the so-called negotiation process to persuade the American president that he supposedly has peaceful intentions or is at least open to them. Trump once again gave Putin two weeks to try to figure out what is really going on in his head. On the other hand, Russia frames its demands in a way that ensures they can never be accepted. This is what Austria-Hungary did in 1914 when issuing its ultimatum to Serbia, and what Hitler did with regard to Poland in 1939.

You're right. We do not know what is in President Trump's mind, and we do not know what is in President Putin's mind. But President Trump has expressed his frustration with Putin’s stalling. He is beginning to realize what I said earlier: Putin is the problem. President Trump wants to end this war. He wants to stop the killing.

The Ukrainians have been very cooperative and willing to agree to a comprehensive ceasefire by air, land, and sea, as President Trump suggested. President Trump presented this proposal to President Putin, and President Putin said no. President Putin is the problem. He has shown that he is not serious about a ceasefire. He wants to continue the fighting.

He wants to continue making small advances on the ground. The only military actions he can rely on are bombs, missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones. That is all he has, and Ukrainians have shown over the past weekend that they can destroy some of those platforms.

General Hodges is exactly right. Go for the archer, not the arrows. The Ukrainians have shown that they can win. They have shown that they have leverage. President Trump is frustrated with President Putin, and he may take steps to put pressure on him through economic measures or by increasing military aid to Ukraine.

What steps might Donald Trump take, and what outcomes could result? When Russia launched its full-scale invasion, there were hopes that Western sanctions could collapse the Russian economy. But it held up — largely thanks to Nabiullina, who built an economic model that gradually shifted Russia onto a war footing in recent years. China is showing its willingness to support Russia, and so is India. So can we really rely on sanctions packages that might be introduced? After all, despite the sanctions, the Russian economy continues to function, the war goes on, and Russia is receiving support not only from North Korea but from others as well.

It is not enough to rely on sanctions. Ukraine needs more than sanctions, but I will come back to that. Ukraine does need weapons. Ukraine needs the ability to shoot down missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, so it needs air defense. It needs artillery. It needs additional support in the area of intelligence.

It needs the kinds of weapons, such as F-16s and others, that would allow it to defend itself and to push the Russians back. So it is not enough to rely on sanctions. But you are right, sanctions have been in place for three years, more than three years. Some sanctions have been in place since 2014, but they have not been fully effective.

The Russians, as you say, have found a way and found different ways of going around them, of evading these sanctions. But we have learned some things about how the Russians are evading sanctions, number one, and we can crack down on those evasions. For example, on the shadow fleet that the Russians use to export their oil. There are ways to go after individual sea captains, and there are ways to go after those who operate that shadow fleet. So we have learned some things as well.

And as you say, the Russian economy is performing well on the military side, but it is doing very poorly on the civilian side. It is vulnerable. It is fragile. The Russian economy is fragile in the civilian sector. The economy is not doing well. Interest rates are very high. Inflation is very high. The Russian economy is fragile.

More sanctions, particularly on the export of oil, gas, coal, and uranium, are needed. As you say, other nations are buying these commodities, buying this oil, gas, coal, and uranium from Russia, and that is helping to keep the Russian economy going.

There is bipartisan legislation here in Washington to crack down on those countries that are buying Russian oil, gas, coal, and uranium. Senator Graham has 81 co-sponsors. So it has strong bipartisan support.

Republicans and Democrats are ready to support a bill that sanctions nations buying Russian resources, Russian oil and gas, with penalties such as 500 percent tariffs on any imports coming from India or China that include Russian oil. That could have a real impact. It could significantly reduce the revenues flowing into Russia that allow it to continue pursuing this war.

How long can Russian aggression continue under the current circumstances? We hope that Lindsey Graham and the rest of the senators will be able to come together and pass a strong sanctions package. However, Putin is showing a readiness to deploy more and more of his soldiers, and Russia's offensive tactics are extremely ruthless — with no regard for human life, much like Marshal Zhukov once acted. We need effective support to make the Russians realize that this war will bring them nothing and to push them toward wanting to negotiate. Right now, there are no signs of that. Heavy weapons and tough decisions that the Kremlin will not like — how realistic are they?

I agree that ressure must be applied to Putin. He needs to understand that he cannot win. This includes economic pressure. We have discussed sanctions, and you mentioned Lindsey Graham and the sanctions bill. That needs to be implemented. It is a tool to reduce the revenues flowing into Russia that enable Putin to continue this war.

If those revenues decline, he will have great difficulty sustaining the war effort. But you are also right that weapons are necessary. Economic sanctions alone will not be enough.

Ukraine needs weapons, both to defend itself and to show Putin that the United States and European countries providing those weapons are serious, consistent, and determined to continue their support. Ukraine must be able to stop the Russian advance and push Russian forces back. It is essential to show Putin that he cannot win.

The Europeans have stepped up in terms of weapons capabilities. They are improving their defense industrial base. The Europeans are taking steps that demonstrate their commitment to Ukraine’s success. As you say, Ukrainians will not stop fighting. This is existential for Ukraine. If Ukraine stops fighting, there is no Ukraine.

They understand that, and the Europeans understand that it is important for Ukrainians to stop the Russians because the Russians will not stop. The Russians will continue to threaten NATO members. This is critically important for Ukrainians, for Europeans, and for Americans. And Americans understand that. There are 81 co-sponsors in the Senate, 81 out of 100 senators.

That is a strong bipartisan majority that recognizes the importance of supporting Ukraine. The American people, when asked, also support Ukraine and oppose Russia. This is the kind of determination Ukrainians, Europeans, and Americans need to show to Putin. He cannot win, and he must come to the table to stop this war.

I was struck by Steve Witkoff’s interview, but on the other hand, I’m grateful that he spoke honestly about how things unfold in world history. Has Witkoff’s mission failed, or do you see any prospects for renewed communication between the American administration and the Kremlin?

Mr. Witkoff is the special envoy, and he has been to Moscow several times, as we know. To my knowledge, he has not come to Kyiv. He does not understand the determination of the Ukrainians. He has shown that he listens very closely to what Putin tells him.

It even seems that he believes what President Putin says, because when he returns, he gives interviews and repeats the talking points he heard from Putin in conversations with American broadcasters.

As you know, General Kellogg has spent a lot of time in Kyiv. He understands the Ukrainians, their history, and their determination to win this war. So there are two envoys with different remits and responsibilities. General Kellogg is providing information to President Trump, and Steve Witkoff is providing information to President Trump as well.

I believe General Kellogg’s views and voice are gaining more influence with President Trump. President Trump has indicated that he is disappointed, angry, and surprised by Putin. He has said that President Putin has gone crazy.

I believe this reaction is due to General Kellogg reporting back to him about the strength of the Ukrainians. President Trump understands the tactics used by President Putin, such as targeting civilians, and he recognizes that as a sign of weakness. Meanwhile, Ukrainians are demonstrating strength.

So I think President Trump is now listening more to General Kellogg and less to Steve Witkoff. We will see how this develops.

The U.S. President said that Putin is insane. I believe that message was clearly understood in the Kremlin. Trump has also repeatedly spoken about the possibility of the United States pulling out of the negotiations. What would a U.S. withdrawal from the negotiation process mean for Ukraine and for Russia?

First of all, I do not think he is going to back out of this process.

I believe President Trump has invested too much in the commitment he made as a candidate. When he was running for president, he said he would end this war. He claimed he would do it within 24 hours.

That is clearly not possible, but he has made it a central focus. President Trump has placed this issue at the top of his foreign policy priorities. It is his most important international effort. It is the issue on which he has spent more time than any other foreign policy matter. So I do not believe President Trump is going to walk away from this issue.

If he were to walk away, it would be seen as a sign of weakness. It would suggest that President Trump had been defeated, out-negotiated, or outplayed by Putin. I do not believe he will allow that. I think he will continue to apply pressure on Putin to come to the negotiating table.

Walking away would represent a major defeat for him – a political and symbolic defeat. It would be his version of Afghanistan. President Biden was permanently tainted by the withdrawal from Afghanistan. If President Trump were to withdraw support for Ukraine, it would be a lasting stain on his presidency. I do not think he will walk away.

I believe he will continue to push and put pressure on Putin to come to the table for a ceasefire.

How realistic is Ukraine’s accession to NATO if the U.S. administration begins to question it? Our European friends are expressing concern. A few days ago, during his speech in Vilnius, the President of Ukraine emphasized that Western politicians should ask their intelligence services what is being prepared in Belarus — the Russians have the will to provoke, and that will only grows when there’s an opportunity to undermine Article 5 of the Euro-Atlantic Treaty. In Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Finland, there is growing concern about the future of Article 5 and about Ukraine’s prospects for NATO membership.

Prospects for Ukraine joining NATO and what would happen if the Russians were to attack a NATO member? Let me address the second question first. If Russia were to make the grave mistake of attacking a NATO member, it would be suicide. It would result in immediate and devastating defeat.

NATO would respond immediately to any attack on any member. NATO would defend every single member of the alliance. If the Russians were to launch such an attack, it would be an act of suicide. If that is what President Putin intends, that is what he would be committing.

There is no doubt about NATO's commitment to the security of all its members.

Now, regarding your first question, I believe it is still possible for Ukraine to join NATO at some point. Many European nations, many NATO member states, would like to see Ukraine become a member. They recognize the benefits that Ukraine brings to the alliance.

NATO would benefit from having Ukraine as a member. Ukraine is the only nation that has fought Russia and held it to a standstill over the last three years. Two years of full-scale fighting, and the Russians have made very little progress.

Just this past weekend, the attack on military bases in Siberia demonstrates that Ukraine would be a strong ally and a strong member of NATO. Many European nations would like to see Ukraine become a member. However, there are some NATO members that would need to be convinced, and the United States is one of them. But that could change.

That could change over time, as I said. In 2008, I remember, I was in Kyiv at the time, the NATO summit in Bucharest addressed this very question. At that time, the United States took a strong position in support of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. It was the Germans and the French who opposed it.

But times have changed. The French now support Ukraine joining NATO, as do the British, the Baltic states, the Poles, Finland, and Sweden. So there are many nations that support this idea, and it is possible that at some point in the future, the Americans and the Germans could also come to support Ukraine's membership in NATO. I believe that is still possible, and I think it should remain on the table as a possibility.

It should not be part of any negotiation with the Russians. Russia has no say in NATO membership decisions. This is not an issue for Russia. Russia does not get a vote on whether or not Ukraine joins. So I believe it is still possible that Ukraine could join NATO in the future.

Our European partners have confirmed their authorization for the use of long-range missile systems on Russian territory. That is an extremely powerful signal. However, when it comes to using TAURUS missiles against Russian military targets, Ukraine currently has no TAURUS systems. And if the war is likely to be prolonged and even more difficult, we would want clarity on the supply of long-range missile systems, aircraft, and air defense systems. These are extremely costly resources, and it is unclear whether our partners will be able to provide the necessary funding and quantities to effectively contain Russian aggression. If Donald Trump were to finally lose patience with Putin, could it be that he might say: fine, I’m opening up the military stockpiles for Ukraine — I want to outdo Biden?

You are right, Anton, it is important for Ukraine to receive the weapons it needs. Ukrainians must be able to stop the Russians and push them back. Many of these weapons are expensive, and you are exactly right.

As you know, there are 300 billion dollars in Russian Central Bank reserves that are currently frozen in Western banks. That 300 billion dollars should be seized and put to use by Ukraine for two purposes. First, to buy the weapons we are talking about.

This money, the 300 billion dollars in Russian Central Bank reserves, could go into a fund for Ukraine and be used to purchase weapons from American manufacturers. It could also be used to buy weapons from existing U.S. stockpiles and to replenish those stockpiles. Funding is necessary. Weapons are necessary for Ukraine.

The Europeans are prepared to provide some of that funding as well.

Not just the Central Bank reserves, but the Europeans are also willing to contribute some of their own money to buy American weapons for the Ukrainians. This is happening while the Europeans work to develop their own defense industrial base more broadly. They have already begun that process, but in the meantime, they can use some of their own funds to purchase weapons for Ukraine.

You are exactly right. Weapons are important, and weapons are expensive. There is money available. The Russian Central Bank reserves are there in central and western European banks and can be used for this purpose.