Ukraine should not be one saying 'No' – it should be Putin, says diplomat Fried

In the US, processes are beginning that no one could have predicted. I see this as a managerial bias that could have consequences for the whole world and for the United States. The US administration sometimes takes strange actions, the consequences of which are alarming. What is happening now with the Donald Trump administration and the so-called American consensus? Some senators are already expressing their concerns publicly.

You have asked a difficult but, unfortunately, justified set of questions. It is not clear in which direction Trump is taking the United States, either generally or with respect to the war against Ukraine.  

It is possible that Trump will decide that, in fact, Putin is responsible for the war and for the failure of negotiations so far. That is the truth. Putin is responsible. Ukrainian President Zelensky has agreed to a 30-day ceasefire.  

Putin, on the other hand, has agreed in principle to much less. Moreover, he has loaded his so-called agreement with such conditions that it effectively means he has not agreed to anything at all. Trump has suggested in recent days that he is unhappy with Putin. Well, perhaps so, but he is not unhappy enough.  

It would be better if Trump recognized that Putin is the problem and that pressure on Russia needs to be increased. That is what I would prefer. Unfortunately, that is not where we are at present.

Europe is rightfully concerned about Trump’s stance on Article 5 of the Euro-Atlantic Treaty. This concerns collective security and the threat of potential Russian aggression. Will Trump uphold existing international commitments? His intentions regarding Greenland are already deeply troubling.

Many of Trump's actions are inconsistent with his declared objectives. He says he wants peace through strength, but he keeps wasting American strength on pointless quarrels, such as with Canada and Denmark over Greenland. There is no good reason for such disputes.  

There is every reason to work with Europe to push back against Putin's aggression against Ukraine and his threats against Europe. The Trump administration is being inconsistent. However, it could still come to the conclusion that Russia needs to be put under greater pressure.  

I hope they come to this conclusion soon. It is also possible that Trump will come to understand that Europe is finally beginning to take its own defense seriously. I think the British and French-led effort to send forces into Ukraine to provide support is a good one.  

I suspect that, in the end, Putin will never agree to a ceasefire if he believes these troops will be sent. Furthermore, I believe that Britain, its allies, and a coalition of the willing should be preparing to send these troops to Ukraine in any event, without Putin's permission. We need to help Ukraine stop the Russians, and then Putin may be more inclined to negotiate seriously.

Two negotiators, one official and one unofficial, Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, are becoming increasingly active. Witkoff makes regular trips to Moscow and I suspect he’s meeting with more than just Putin. Now Dmitriev is heading to Washington, clearly acting as a trusted emissary of the Kremlin. What is unfolding through these channels of communication? And how serious is the talk of a new Yalta?

You are right to be concerned. It is not clear to me whether the Trump administration will actually conclude a dirty deal with Putin over the heads of Ukrainians. This is possible but not necessarily the case. It is true that Dmitriyev is well, I've heard he's coming to Washington. He will attempt to entice the Trump administration to work with Russia, making all kinds of offers of economic cooperation if only the U.S. will abandon Ukraine. We Americans would be ill-advised to listen. We should not be suckers. We should not be fools. 

And there are people in the Trump administration who understand this perfectly well. I think that Secretary of State Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Wallace do understand this.  

As for Steve Witkoff, he is obviously an intelligent and capable person, but his interview with Tucker Carlson revealed a level of naivety and gullibility about the Kremlin that Ukrainians and others, like Poles, are all too familiar with. That is unfortunate. However, he is not the only voice.  

General Kellogg is far more aware of Kremlin tactics and the history of the conflict. But, as your question suggests, there are very different groups within the Trump administration and within what I will call Trump World, those associated with or supportive of Trump outside the administration.  

There is not yet a consistent U.S. position, and I hope that when one emerges, it will be better than the worst-case scenario you have described, a kind of Yalta-style deal over the heads of Ukrainians. We are not there yet, and I hope to God we never get there.

The Yalta scenario envisions a triangle: the United States, Russia, and China. The European Union is being sidelined. We can already see how tough Trump is starting to act toward the Europeans – it may seem like it is about money, but in reality, it is about security and global stability. There is a dialogue between Putin and Trump, a meeting between Putin and Xi Jinping, and global bargaining is underway. Where might the red lines be for our recent ally, the United States? We are concerned, because if the Russians, the Chinese, and the Trump administration come together, the agenda will likely go beyond Taiwan, Greenland, or the Arctic – and include Ukraine as well.

You are unfortunately correct that there are some in Trump World and some within the Trump administration who believe in a spheres-of-influence approach or a grand Yalta approach, meaning that the great powers would each have their own areas of control.  

Russia, China, and the United States. There are people in the administration who believe that would be a good thing. They are foolish. I fundamentally disagree with them, but that is not the point. They do exist. However, fortunately, they are not the only group.  

There is a group of what I would call neo-Reaganites who believe that the United States has adversaries, including Russia and China, and that we need to prevail. To prevail, we must work with the world's democracies.  

The European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and others. It is not clear to me which school of thought will succeed. The Yalta School would have us surrender Ukraine to Russia. However, the Europeans will not abandon Ukraine. Ukraine can fight.

Moreover, if Trump attempted to conclude a bad deal with Putin, he would look like a freier, a sucker, and he hates to be seen as a loser. He hates it. He wants to be seen as a winner.  

The fact is, if the neo-Reaganite group in the administration can prevail, the United States can help Ukraine, and we can all end up as winners. We need to put more pressure on Russia and provide more support to Ukraine so that Russia is unable to advance and Putin is more inclined to negotiate a real end to the conflict.  

Right now, he is doing the opposite.

We understand the need to improve communication with Washington, but that won’t matter if decisions are made between China, Russia, and the Trump administration. We place our hopes in Europe, but unfortunately, Europe lacks significant military power and is preparing for something major in a few years – while the crisis is already unfolding for Ukraine. Once China, Russia, and the US reach an agreement, Trump could start pressuring Europe. The real question is: how willing are the UK, France, and Germany to significantly increase their financial and military support for Ukraine, rather than just offering words of solidarity?

You are right that the Europeans will not be capable militarily of doing what they need to do to help Ukraine and defend themselves for several more years. But the Europeans do have some options, and I hope they rally together and do more to help Ukraine in the meantime.

However, you're correct that despite the difficulty of working with the Trump administration, it is important for President Zelensky and his team to continue trying. Moreover, there are people in the Trump administration and in Congress who are pro-Ukrainian. There are such people. So, this is not going to be easy, but it is possible.

It is also true that Trump may be frustrated with Putin's game-playing and his avoidance of serious negotiations. So, this strikes me as Ukraine's best play: work with the Americans, find your allies, and make sure that the responsibility for saying no to the Americans falls on the Kremlin. If Trump is clear, it will be Ukraine that wants to work with the United States, that supports what Trump is trying to do, and it will be Russia, specifically Putin, who is blocking it.

Now, this is not easy, of course, and the Americans are doing things that frustrate the Ukrainians, but that's why diplomats are paid their salaries—to figure out a path forward. And I suspect that path still exists.

The first proposal from the Trump administration on minerals was tough, and the next one is even harsher. It feels like an ultimatum to the state. Perhaps Witkoff sees it this way: if Ukraine refuses, it gives them a reason to distance themselves from us; if Ukraine agrees, we become a controlled semi-colony. This is not an economic offer, it is a geopolitical ultimatum.

The US-Ukraine deal on economic cooperation that was ready to be signed on February 28th was a very good deal.  

It is a good idea to find a framework to work with the Americans to encourage American investment in Ukraine and the joint exploitation of Ukrainian minerals and other resources. So, that's a good idea. However, the current draft has raised, let us say, a number of very difficult questions.  

It is possible that Trump is committed to some kind of deal, but not necessarily to all the details of this particular deal. And in that, you see Ukraine's opportunity. Ukraine can say yes to the deal in general, and then work to make sure that some of the details are more balanced.  

It's a good idea to give America a stake in Ukraine's economic development. It's a bad idea to give the Americans too much power. As I said, the deal from February 28th that was ready to be signed that day was pretty good generally, but very good. This current deal may need some work, and I think Ukraine is probably in the process of trying to see what can be done.  

So, I think that an effort to make it possible to get to "yes" is probably the best play at this point.

Let’s say President Zelensky and the Verkhovna Rada reject this type of agreement. What would that mean for Ukraine in the current context? The issue has already gone public and gained attention within the United States. Donald Trump wants constant wins and wants to show Americans that he is correcting the mistakes of the Biden administration. US aid to Ukraine was approved by all branches, Congress and the Senate passed it, and the President signed it. And now it turns out it was essentially a loan. This is an unprecedented situation, but it is real. So what happens if Ukraine says no?

Much depends on the approach and tactics Ukraine uses.  

It should not say no. If it cannot say yes, it needs to find a way to keep moving forward – finding an area of agreement sufficient to take this agreement to the next stage and, hopefully, conclude it. The tactics are important.  

There is a good idea in this agreement: Ukrainian-American cooperation for the development of Ukraine's economy.  

The details, and you mentioned some of them, seem to be a problem. There may be a way to fix this. It is important for Ukraine to be creative and try. At the same time, Ukraine should work with some of its friends in Washington to get a better hearing from those parts of Trump World who are prepared to listen.  

But in the end, Ukraine should not say no; it should allow Putin to be the one who is always saying no. Now, I realize that what I've said is easy to say and hard to do in the case of this draft agreement, but I think finding a way forward at all times is going to be important.

And if, for example, Putin intends to deceive Trump or act differently than Trump expects, is Trump actually prepared to escalate tensions with Russia? So far, Trump has said that Ukraine and President Zelensky “could have big problems.” But could Putin also face serious consequences if he fails to reach an agreement with Trump? Or is this all just political theatre?

Putin will attempt to manipulate Trump. He is already doing so. Putin is very skilled at this sort of thing. Judging by his interview with Tucker Carlson, Steve Witkoff appears to have accepted some Russian arguments that he should not have accepted.  

So, the danger is that Putin will be able to convince Trump to act in accordance with Putin's analysis of the situation, in line with Russian interests. 

However, Putin is also supremely arrogant, and it may be that his arrogance will hurt him, because Trump also knows or may suspect that he is being played, and he will not like that. He does not want to be seen as a loser. 

Now, there are those in the Trump world who understand the Russians reasonably well. There are others who have no idea what the Russians are like. As a rule, Russian officials will lie to their interlocutors based on their assessment of their interlocutors' knowledge or ignorance. In other words, when you start talking to the Russians, you'd better know what you're talking about because they will not act in good faith.  

This is the problem that the Trump administration has. There are people in the administration who understand the Russians, but I'm not sure... I am fairly sure that not all of them do. And therein lies the problem. But Trump's instincts may be suggesting to him that Putin is stalling, and Trump may not appreciate that. That is actually a hopeful sign that we have seen in recent days.

On May 9, Putin is aiming for a personal triumph. He’s trying to link it to the victory over Nazism, when the world came together to defeat Hitler – but what he really needs are symbolic victories. It is clear, however, that this war will be prolonged. What is the worst-case scenario for Ukraine, and over what timeframe? What might happen in the next few months, and where could it lead?

There are various bad scenarios for Ukraine. The United States could pull its support for Ukraine, as it did before. You remember, after February 28th, we suspended military assistance and intelligence cooperation with Ukraine.  

We could do that again. We could come to a dirty deal, a dirty conversation with the Russians about Ukraine. That is possible.  

Some people around the White House have suggested that Trump wants to see progress before Easter, before basically his third month in office.  

Putin may want to see a great triumph by May 9th, as you said. But Trump also does not want to be a loser. And his team, or at least some people in his team, are aware of the political dangers to him if he abandons Ukraine.  

So, the bad scenarios for Ukraine are mitigated by Trump's awareness of some of the political risks if he treats Ukraine badly. Moreover, the Europeans do seem to be reasonably united in support of Ukraine. The new German government will be, the Poles are, and the French and Germans are doing what they need to do.  

So, Ukraine is not without friends. It has its friends, it has its supporters, and the Americans may yet come around. I don't say this with great enthusiasm because my own country should be doing better. But... How does it go? Ukraine has not yet perished.