Trump doing as he pleases now, but will align with Ukraine's position in the end — General Clark

We do not fully understand Donald Trump’s strategic stance, nor how it might influence Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This uncertainty is troubling, as the American president is unpredictable, and his decisions and statements have often caused deep concern among Ukrainians.

Dear General, what is the current U.S. security posture, and how might it shape the situation across Europe? Russia is not only waging war in Ukraine — it is also threatening the Baltic States and Poland. Many of us had hoped President Trump would take bold and decisive action, yet instead, his recent moves have raised alarm.

It’s very difficult for me to explain President Trump’s rationale because I’m not with him. I’m not in the office, I don’t hear what he says, and I don’t know what he’s thinking.

But here’s how I interpret the situation. Mr. Putin is going to apply maximum pressure to try to take advantage of the ongoing negotiation process. For Mr. Putin, these diplomatic talks are simply another path to achieving his objective. That objective is to dominate and overrun Ukraine, possibly take over the Baltics, maybe even Poland, and ultimately break apart NATO. This is his goal. We know this because he has stated it very clearly in multiple documents.

President Trump seems to believe that if he offers Mr. Putin the opportunity to be reintegrated into the global community, to have sanctions reduced, and to resume normal trade, this might persuade Mr. Putin to end the war.

That, essentially, is the position that appears to be taking shape through President Trump and Mr. Steve Witkoff in their negotiations. It comes down to whether the desired results can be achieved through charm or through pressure.

However, I have to say that based on my experience and study of negotiations, and I’ve been involved in many with regimes like Mr. Putin’s, I have seen nothing to suggest that charm is effective. In fact, charm is usually perceived as weakness. The more concessions that are offered, the more likely it is that additional demands will follow.

This pattern has repeated itself in many negotiations, beginning with North Korea in the 1950s, continuing through Vietnam, and in my own experience with Milosevic and others since then.

The negotiation process may not have officially begun, but it’s clear that the Russians are deceiving Donald Trump. One particularly symbolic moment stands out — a war crime: Russia launched ballistic missiles at the city of Sumy, killing civilians on Palm Sunday. Yet this did nothing to shift President Trump’s rhetoric. It seems evident that Russia is determined to continue its offensive and aggressive actions.

Here’s a question for your intuition: will Trump eventually realise that he must re-engage in the global arena to help stop Russian aggression? Until recently, he kept blaming Joseph Biden and President Zelensky for everything, insisting that if he had been in office, the war would never have started.

The rhetoric is definitely confusing. I think President Trump believes he is on the right course.

I don’t want to criticize him directly because I’m not part of that communication network. But everything I’ve seen suggests that Mr. Putin believes he can dominate the conversation and continue the war. He may propose talks about not bombing infrastructure or about opening access to the Black Sea and other similar topics. These allow him to score points, gain public praise, and create the illusion of progress in negotiations. Based on my experience, I do not expect any real diplomatic progress until Mr. Putin realizes he cannot achieve victory through military force.

The strike on Sumy on Palm Sunday was clearly intended as a blow to the morale of the Ukrainian people. It was meant to hurt civilians, terrorize the population, and pressure the Ukrainian government into making further concessions or at least prepare them to do so in future negotiations.

It is very clear what Mr. Putin’s strategy is. Mr. Trump’s strategy is less clear. But what matters is that Europe’s allies are continuing to stand with Ukraine.

Ukrainian forces remain strong on the battlefield, and I believe the people of Ukraine must continue to show resilience in this conflict and hold firm for as long as it takes to convince Mr. Putin that he cannot win.

​​Putin’s strategy can be summed up by the formula “escalation to achieve de-escalation.” In other words, he is willing to raise the level of tension and even the scale of war crimes in order to extract concessions. Russia is applying pressure on Trump through figures like Witkoff and other backchannels, yet it is clear that Moscow has no intention of scaling back its aggression against Ukraine.

Here in Ukraine, moments like Putin praying for Trump’s health or the gifting of Trump’s portrait are seen as informal negotiations with the enemy. We never expected to witness such gestures coming from the United States.

As an experienced American statesman and military officer, may I ask: where are the “trump cards” Donald Trump once mentioned to our president? Perhaps you can help us see what strengths we still hold, beyond our absolute moral rightness.

In my view, Ukraine has nothing to trade away in this situation.

Instead, Ukraine should focus on strengthening its armed forces to the fullest extent possible. It should continue developing advanced technologies that can surpass Russian capabilities, such as fiber optic drones, and prioritize domestic production of artillery shells to narrow the gap in key areas where Russia currently holds an advantage.

Ukraine should also maintain smaller offensive operations to keep Russia off balance and continue building strong relationships with European allies. I believe President Trump will continue to pursue his own strategy, but ultimately, much of the outcome depends on Ukraine.

I am aware that a mineral deal is currently under discussion. The full details are not yet public. Occasionally, we hear that changes have been made or see a draft version. However, the critical issue remains the same: preserving military flexibility and maintaining the strength needed for effective defense.

I have seen proposals for concessions, such as giving up territory. Personally, I would not recommend that. In my experience, any concession is usually followed by new demands for additional concessions.

Since 2014, Russia has been under sanctions for its illegal seizure of Crimea. That action remains a clear violation of international law. The international community has consistently held that borders cannot be changed by force. Both the United States and Russia provided assurances guaranteeing Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity.

Russia has violated those assurances. So far, the United States has remained firm in its support. I can say with confidence that three-quarters of the American people understand that Ukraine is fighting for the same values we hold dear in the United States. They admire the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people and armed forces.

They do not believe Russia is ready to be welcomed back into the international community. Russia is seen as an aggressor state and must be treated as such, sanctioned, and held accountable until it ends its occupation of Ukrainian territory.

Therefore, I believe the American public stands with you.

I think President Trump is doing what he believes is best to end the fighting. But ultimately, he will look to Ukraine to determine the terms it is willing to accept. That is the nature of diplomacy.

My advice is this: stand firm.

You once played a key role in ending the war in Yugoslavia. You were willing to raise the stakes, and perhaps it was your courage, determination and consistency that helped stop the Russian provocation known as the Pristina offensive. Many of the figures who opposed you then on the Russian side are still active today, such as General Ivashov and General Yevkurov, now Deputy Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation.

I would like to ask for your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Russian command, its generals and the Russian military overall. We may be on the brink of a new world war, one that will look very different, especially with the growing use of new technologies such as drones and other advanced systems.

I would never underestimate the quality of Russian command or the military-industrial complex behind it.

The Russians follow a different standard and approach to warfare. They believe in mass. They are not as concerned about the lives of their soldiers as we are in the West.

However, I believe the troops and leadership of Ukraine have done an admirable job since 2014 in adapting to the realities of confronting Russian forces. There has been steady progress, and I know that we in the United States, especially those connected to the military, have followed the battles closely.

We are studying the technology, learning from Ukraine’s innovations, and observing the rapid development and fielding of modifications to existing systems. Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable agility in this regard. The key point, in my view, is to stand firm.

It is important to recognize that Ukraine is engaged in a struggle on two fronts. One is the military front, and the other is the diplomatic front. It is essential to balance efforts on both sides and to understand that developments in one area can affect the other. Military actions can shape diplomatic outcomes, and diplomatic moves can influence the battlefield.

This could become a prolonged conflict. I do not foresee a quick resolution.

For comparison, the United States was involved in negotiations with North Korea from 1951 to 1953 to end that conflict. It took two years and was a long and difficult process. This could be similar.

You must recognize that this is a struggle on two fronts: diplomatic and military.

We were interviewed on the eve of the elections. In the current climate of geopolitical uncertainty, we cannot help but draw historical parallels with the fall of Saigon and Kabul. At key moments in history and war, the United States has at times walked away from its commitments. I would remind the audience that during the Vietnam War, you, General Clark, were wounded, shot four times, yet continued to lead your unit.

Given that history, I would like to ask for your view: is there a risk that the United States or a future U.S. administration might act in bad faith toward Ukraine? Or do you believe such a scenario is out of the question?

I think when this open conflict began in 2022, the United States clearly recognized its obligation to support Ukraine and understood that Ukraine’s defense was implicitly tied to America’s national security. I believe that connection still holds.

Most people in the United States recognize that, in facing today’s global challenges, the country is dealing with several potential adversaries — Iran, North Korea, China, and of course, Russia. These adversaries are increasingly cooperating with one another. The most active battlefield at the moment is Ukraine.

However, our potential adversaries are closely observing America’s actions in Ukraine. That is why the United States must remain strong in its support for Ukraine. Failing to do so would be perceived as weakness, and that perception would influence the decisions and strategies of other potential adversaries.

I would like to ask for your assessment of our strengths. We had a capable Commander-in-Chief, General Zaluzhny, and now General Syrsky is leading the effort. The enemy continues to deploy massive numbers of personnel and has a significant arsenal of ballistic missiles. And yet, we have held our ground. Our commanders are conducting operations with skill and precision in areas like the Kursk and Belgorod regions. Still, it is clear that this war will be protracted. We must focus on preserving both our personnel and the structure of our forces.

It may be time to consider unconventional steps, such as deep strikes on Russian infrastructure. The outcome of backchannel negotiations between figures like Witkoff and the Kremlin, or Putin and Trump, remains uncertain. There have even been discussions about a possible moratorium on military activity in the Black Sea basin and on energy infrastructure. But by launching two ballistic missiles at Sumy, Russia signaled that it was walking away from those talks. What unconventional measures do you believe Ukraine could take in response, including the possibility of deep strikes?

As I look across the battlefield along the front in Ukraine, I cannot judge the specific decisions made by commanders.

I cannot know what is in the minds of Ukrainian commanders because I am not there, and I do not have access to those details. However, here is what I do observe: the strikes against Russian energy infrastructure have been relatively painful for Russia. If they were not, Russia would not be proposing a moratorium on such strikes.

We know that these strikes impact Russia’s ability to generate revenue. So, they have a strategic effect, though not necessarily an immediate impact on the battlefield. It is up to Ukraine’s commanders and leadership to weigh one against the other. By striking deep into Russian territory, Ukraine has apparently prompted Russia to request: "Do not strike our energy infrastructure."

The question is, what is Russia willing to concede in exchange for such an agreement? So far, no such agreement has taken effect, because every time a commercial or diplomatic framework is discussed, Russia adds new demands in an effort to extract further concessions. Still, it seems to me that these long-range strikes are producing diplomatic pressure and some degree of effect.

The real question is about trade-offs — whether focusing more on operationally significant targets would be more effective. For example, strikes on ammunition depots are known to work. They are achievable and impactful. But anything involving positional warfare essentially comes down to attrition.

In maneuver warfare, the goal is to concentrate strikes to enable mobile forces to achieve a decisive battlefield outcome through movement and flexibility. In this case, Ukraine is engaged in positional defense.

So, the key battlefield objectives are to prevent the enemy from massing forces and altering the character of the battle. This is achieved by reducing the enemy’s capacity to sustain warfare — by targeting fuel supplies, ammunition stockpiles, troop staging areas, and these kinds of targets. But the mix of that, how it’s done, and so forth — until we have greater access to information publicly available in the West, it is neither appropriate nor useful for us to offer more specific commentary.

What actions would have the greatest impact on Russia? We are not referring to strikes on civilian targets, but there are certain measures that would hit them where it hurts most. What do you believe those might be?

I think the most important thing is that you are gradually wearing down the Russian military machine.

Now, you have to understand what I believe to be the Russian strategy. They are going to threaten Kharkiv and Sumy. Their aim is to force Ukraine to deploy additional reserves to defend Kharkiv, Sumy, and the broader northeastern region.

However, Russia’s key strategic objective is Odesa. The main threat, and likely their main effort, remains focused on Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv, and ultimately Odesa. From Russia’s perspective, once they take Odesa, the war is over and they consider it a victory.

So, I believe the priority for Ukraine at this stage is strategic defense. Any actions that can weaken Russia’s logistical capacity would be helpful.

For example, if it is possible to disrupt their ability to operate out of Crimea — by targeting the rail lines, the bridge, or any other supply routes they use to bring in resources — that would be valuable in hindering their movement toward Kherson.

But I think it’s important to approach this from a military standpoint first. I do not believe it is wise, and I do not think Kyiv currently has the necessary military resources, to make this war purely about inflicting pain on Russia.

Instead, the goal should be to convince Mr. Putin that he simply cannot win this war through military means.