Fixing frontline doesn’t mean renouncing Ukraine’s 1991 borders — diplomat Fried

Daniel Fried, former long-time U.S. State Department coordinator for sanctions policy, shared his opinions in an interview with Antin Borkovskyi, host of the Studio West program on Espreso TV.

“I think it is perfectly reasonable for Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire, even one that de facto follows the current front line. That would mean that Russia continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, but Ukraine does not have to recognize that occupation as permanent. There is ample precedent for this. West Germany did not recognize East Germany. It insisted that it alone was the legitimate government of all of Germany. In the end, even though many believed that German reunification would never happen, it did,” he noted.

 The U.S. administration is now shaping a clear strategy regarding Ukraine. Trump held talks with both Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, though in the wrong order. Trump could have been more explicit and clearly stated that Russia is the aggressor. However, as the full picture of U.S. proposals is still unclear, the situation is not as critical as it may seem, says Fried.

“U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, speaking at the NATO summit, presented the key elements of Trump's new plan for Ukraine. These include a ceasefire, security guarantees for Ukraine provided by European, not American, troops, and the exclusion of Ukraine’s NATO membership from negotiations with Russia. Many Ukrainians reacted critically to Hegseth’s statements. However, upon closer analysis, they may prove less threatening than initially thought. The current ceasefire means that Ukraine will not be able to reclaim the territories occupied by Russia, but this was already clear,” he noted.

Hegseth emphasized that European troops would be responsible for ensuring peace, but he did not rule out the possibility of American support for these forces, including the involvement of air forces.

“The Trump administration insists on deploying European troops on the ground. However, European countries are unlikely to agree to this without American support, and Hegseth ultimately did not rule out such support, which is a key point. Overall, Hegseth's outlined provisions leave room for a potentially acceptable outcome: a ceasefire, Ukraine’s NATO membership, which is not up for negotiation but is hoped to remain on the strategic agenda, and forces to monitor the frontline. Undoubtedly, European countries will have many questions about the implementation of these provisions,” noted the American diplomat.

According to him, Ukraine should not sign any documents recognizing the annexation of any of its territories by Russia. Likewise, the United States should not accept this as a condition. The Trump administration spoke about a ceasefire and ending the war, but this should not imply concessions that solidify Ukraine’s territorial losses.

"There is a significant difference between agreeing to a ceasefire along the current line of contact and accepting Russian territorial conquests. The former would be a strategically justified step. The latter would be a serious mistake. I hope the Trump administration will not make concessions to Russia, as that would be a catastrophic position for the United States. Moreover, it would contradict the declared policy of the Trump administration itself. Secretary of State Pompeo clearly stated that the U.S. will never recognize the legitimacy of Russia’s occupation or annexation of Crimea. The Trump administration has already officially rejected the idea of Soviet or Russian territorial appropriation of Ukrainian lands, and I hope this position remains unchanged," he concluded.

• On February 14, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth stated that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin plans to announce victory in the war against Ukraine, despite the actual developments on the ground.