Trump's Resource Agreement acknowledges independent Ukraine as a U.S. interest – expert Fried

Extremely troubling news is emerging from the White House and Europe, where Pete Hegseth, the newly appointed Pentagon chief, has traveled. Both we and our European partners are deeply concerned by what we have learned, especially as American isolationism has proven to be not just a theoretical concept, but a tangible security framework that is now rapidly unraveling before our eyes. There are growing fears that Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and possibly Poland could become hostages to Russian aggression.

We are beginning to see the Trump administration present an actual strategy for Ukraine.

Trump spoke with Vladimir Putin, and he also spoke with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, speaking to NATO, outlined elements of the emerging Trump plan for Ukraine. These elements roughly include a ceasefire in place, security guarantees for Ukraine maintained by European troops rather than American troops, and the idea that NATO membership for Ukraine would not be part of the negotiations with Russia.

Many Ukrainians reacted negatively to what Defense Secretary Hegseth said. However, upon closer examination, his remarks may not be as concerning as initially feared. A ceasefire in place means that Ukraine will not immediately regain the territories occupied by Russia, but this was already widely understood.

While Ukraine will not reclaim these territories in the near term, I did not hear the Americans asking Ukraine to surrender its claims to its national territory within its internationally recognized 1991 borders. That was not part of what the Americans said.

Secondly, Hegseth stated that European troops would be responsible for maintaining the peace, but he did not rule out American support for those forces including air power. It has long been known that the Trump administration would insist on European troops being deployed on the ground. However, European nations are unlikely to commit troops without American backing, and Hegseth did not rule out such support. This is significant.

Overall, the elements of what Hegseth outlined remain consistent with a potentially respectable outcome. A ceasefire in place, NATO membership not being part of negotiations but hopefully not off the table entirely, and a force to monitor the line of contact. European nations will have many questions.

We will learn more, particularly this weekend at the Munich Security Conference, where Vice President Vance and I believe Secretary Rubio will be in attendance. This situation remains fluid.

I am aware of the criticism that President Trump called Putin before calling Zelenskyy. I would have done it the other way around. I also believe that Trump has not been as clear as he could have been in stating that Russia is the aggressor.

Despite its flaws, what the U.S. government has begun to propose and we have not yet seen the full picture. It is not as bad as fear would have it.

So I am cautious, but I am not negative about what we heard yesterday from the Trump administration. I also think that the Ukrainian government and President Zelenskyy have handled this as well as they could. President Zelenskyy has been consistently constructive and positive in public, which is the proper way to approach the Trump administration.  

We will see. I am not predicting the future, but the concerns of some of my Ukrainian friends are completely understandable. However, at least at this stage, they are not necessarily justified.

What about the negotiations on Ukraine between Donald Trump and Putin? After all, it’s not just about their direct conversations – there was also Mr. Vitkoff, who facilitated the transfer of an American citizen from Moscow, indicating additional channels of communication. While the situation is not beyond repair, it is highly dangerous, especially when Ukraine lacks a clear understanding of the parameters of what Trump refers to as a "big deal."

Of course, Putin will try to manipulate Trump. We cannot count on Putin to negotiate in good faith.  

What was once said of the Soviet Union applies to Putin as well. He is impervious to the logic of reason but may respond to the logic of force. Therefore, the United States and Europe need to keep the pressure on Russia, and some members of the Trump administration have recognized this.  

Ukrainians, of course, will be concerned anytime Trump and Putin speak without Ukraine present, and I completely understand this.  

Much depends on the details, and it is entirely possible that if Putin is too greedy, too aggressive, and demands too much, Trump will reject it. Trump does not want to be seen as a loser or as weak in front of Putin.  

Giving in to Putin's demands or allowing him to manipulate the situation would put Trump in a position of appearing weak, which he does not want. I understand Ukrainian concerns, and I believe that President Zelenskyy will meet with Vice President Vance in Munich. That is an excellent idea.  

Ukraine has some ability to influence the Trump administration’s thinking. We are about to enter a very intense period of negotiations, but Ukraine has some assets. It has held off the Russians and now controls part of Kursk Oblast.  

The Ukrainian military is under pressure, but it continues to show both resilience and creativity while holding off the Russians. The Americans now face some important choices, and hopefully, they will make the right ones.

Three years ago, on the eve of Russia’s full-scale invasion, I spoke with many people. One well-known political analyst told me that the question was never whether a full-scale invasion would happen. It was whether it would come with or without concentration camps.  

So what is Putin’s ultimate goal? Will we see concentration camps in two months, six months or a year? Or will he instead attempt to weaken Ukraine just enough to keep it within what is deemed civilizationally acceptable limits?

Putin has openly stated his war aims, which are to destroy Ukrainian nationhood and reduce Ukraine to nothing more than a province of Russia or, at best, a satellite state. He has failed to achieve this after three years of war, and he will not succeed on the battlefield.  

If Trump abandons Ukraine, Putin could achieve his goals politically. However, I do not believe that Trump will abandon Ukraine because he does not want to be held responsible for the consequences. If he were to do so, he would be accused of being weak, and he hates the idea of appearing weak. We all know perfectly well what Putin has in mind for Ukraine.  

If he were to conquer Ukraine, he would stamp out its distinct culture and carry out mass arrests. The Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, which included mass deportations, serves as a historical precedent, and I believe Putin would follow a similar approach.  

I cannot say for certain, but if history is any guide, the Russians, like the Soviets before them, would use mass concentration camps, exile, or other forms of repression to eliminate Ukraine’s political identity. And Ukrainians do not need an American to tell them this. It is well known. However, Putin may not succeed.  

He has not conquered all of Ukraine. He has managed to occupy 20 percent of its territory, but even in that occupied area, there is resistance. Ukrainians continue to resist Russian occupation. The Russian military is under both military and economic pressure. Although Russia may be making slow advances on the battlefield, it is not winning the war in a decisive way.  

Putin may feel the need to end the war on the best terms he can secure.  

The United States should help Ukraine end the war on the best terms possible, which means no recognition of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories as part of Russia, no exclusion of Ukraine from NATO, and a vigorous, not passive, enforcement of the line of contact. There must be no return to the Minsk Accords.  

I do not know whether we will get there, but it is possible. That is what we will see unfold in the coming weeks or months.

I don’t know what will happen in Riyadh, how detailed certain agreements will be, whether anything will happen there at all, or if Putin will break certain commitments. We need to keep a close eye on both the proceedings and the documents being signed because there is a risk of history repeating itself, much like the Czechoslovakian scenario of 1938 when President Beneš was essentially forced to sign under pressure. The pressure this time will undoubtedly be immense.  

What should we focus on first? Specifically, what might Putin try to sell to Trump to increase pressure on Ukraine?

I think Ukraine would be ill-advised to sign anything that recognizes the Russian annexation of any Ukrainian territory. I also believe that the Americans would be badly advised to accept that as a condition. The Trump administration has spoken about a ceasefire and ending the war.  

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.  

A principled and patient Ukrainian position, one that supports a ceasefire but refuses to recognize Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, is the best way forward. However, it does not matter what I think. Ukrainians do not have to listen to me. But you asked the question.  

There is a significant difference between agreeing to a ceasefire along the current lines of contact and accepting Russian territorial conquest. The first would be reasonable. The second would be a mistake. I hope the Trump administration does not accept Russia's claims because that would be a terrible position for the United States.  

It would also contradict the Trump administration’s own stance. When Secretary Pompeo made his declaration, he stated that the United States would never recognize Russia’s occupation or annexation of Crimea as legitimate.  

The Trump administration has already rejected the principle of Soviet or Russian territorial acquisition of Ukrainian territory, and I hope we maintain this position.

Trump wants to distance himself from responsibility, especially when he talks about shifting the burden of guarantees for Ukraine from the United States to Europe. The situation is very serious. What do you think we should do? Time is short, and the pressure is immense. Trump has already shown what he is capable of. He can withhold funding and weapons, as we saw with USAID. Meanwhile, there are troubling voices in the United States claiming that half of the money sent to Ukraine was stolen and that weapons were sold to Mexican drug cartels. But it is clear that this is just a tactic to pressure Ukraine into making a bad decision.

I think that the Ukrainian government has worked with the Trump administration as well as anyone could expect.  

Trump recently stated that he wants the United States to have access to Ukrainian mineral deposits and to be able to mine them. He suggested that such access could, in a sense, serve as Ukraine's repayment for all the U.S. military assistance provided so far. The Ukrainian government agreed to this.  

The advantage of this understanding with the Americans is that Trump has now acknowledged that a free Ukraine is in America's interest because he wants Americans, not Russians, to have access to those mineral deposits. This is not the language I would have used.  

However, if this is the reasoning that convinces Trump that it is in America's interest to support Ukraine, then I can accept that. The Ukrainian government should continue to be, let us say, creative in the way it works with the Trump administration.  

This process will be difficult in many ways, but there is a possibility that Trump will push back against Putin's demands and ultimately support Ukraine. He may realize that it is in America's interest for Ukraine to survive as an independent and prosperous country. That possibility remains.  

We will learn more in the coming days during and after the Munich Security Conference.  

It is important that Ukraine remains a country the Americans can work with, especially if Putin attempts to deceive Trump, as he is likely to do.

How prepared are the United Kingdom and Turkey to support us in the current situation? The key developments should become clear within a month, possibly by May 9, which would suit Putin’s agenda. However, Ukraine must ensure it has additional safeguards, even in the worst-case scenarios.

I think that European countries have understood for several months that the United States would ask them to take on a greater degree of responsibility for Ukrainian security.  

Western Europeans, particularly the French, have been discussing the possibility of deploying troops inside Ukraine in the context of an agreed ceasefire. They are going to have to do this, but they will not, and probably should not, do so without American backup.  

That American backup, possibly in the form of air power to support the Europeans if the Russians attack again, is a deal that has yet to be made. But it will need to be made. Defense Secretary Hegseth's remarks yesterday kept that possibility open. I am not a prophet, and I do not know what will happen in the future.  

However, I believe the Europeans are far more willing than they were a year ago to consider this because they understand that their own security is at stake. Putin poses a threat to European security. If he conquers Ukraine, he will not stop there. The Europeans know this.  

They would rather confront Putin and stop him before he takes Ukraine.

There is another scenario, the financial and economic one. Trump is clearly focused on money, and the amount he claims Ukraine allegedly owes the United States is in the tens of billions. This suggests that he may use certain mechanisms to demand immediate repayment of funds that were originally provided as grants. Such a move could destabilize Ukraine’s financial system, and EU assistance might not be enough to counteract it.  

If we consider a worst-case financial scenario driven by Trump’s position and the recent visit of the U.S. Treasury Secretary to Kyiv, what should we be prepared for? Who is the current Treasury Secretary, and what might he have come with besides discussions about Ukraine’s mineral resources?

The Treasury Secretary, Mr. Benson, was in Kyiv, and I believe he was discussing the issue we talked about earlier – U.S. access to minerals inside Ukraine.  

It is likely that Trump will insist that the U.S. not provide arms or financial support to Ukraine outright but instead allow Ukraine to borrow for such assistance, similar to the Lend-Lease program from World War II. If this approach leads to continued U.S. support for Ukraine, it is probably a workable idea.  

Trump wants to do things differently and to be seen as doing things differently. What matters most is that U.S. support for Ukraine continues.  

If this requires a different kind of arrangement, I would still prefer that the United States simply continue supporting Ukraine because it is in our national interest. However, if Trump insists on a more complicated approach but it ultimately results in continued U.S. support for Ukraine, then that is good enough for me.

Zelenskyy has imposed sanctions that, among others, have affected Ukraine’s fifth president, Petro Poroshenko. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled that elections should be held in Ukraine. How might this situation influence the perception of events in Ukraine? More importantly, how much pressure is Trump likely to exert on the issue of holding elections while the country remains under martial law and at war with Russia?

President Trump has spoken several times, including recently, about the need for elections in Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine needs to hold elections, but only after the fighting stops and martial law ends.  

I believe Ukraine’s position should be that elections are necessary, but they must take place only after the fighting ends and Russia respects a ceasefire. They should not be a precondition for anything. Elections need to be the final step, not the first.  

There is nothing to fear from elections. The Russians will, of course, try everything they can to support a pro-Russian candidate. But as for Ukrainians – well, you tell me – but I do not believe they will ever vote for a pro-Russian candidate after everything they have been through.  

This is not my business. I am not a Ukrainian citizen, and I will not be voting in Ukrainian elections. But I have faith in Ukraine and believe its people will not be fooled.