'I believe deal will emerge that serves Ukraine's interests' — U.S. journalist Ignatius

What on earth is happening in the United States right now? We’d barely moved on from the Greenland annexation story when Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of 66 international agreements that had been in place for decades. And, as I see it, that essentially brings the era of Pax Americana to an end. I’m not sure whether Trump is trying to build a new global order — one in which America is meant to become even greater. Or is he simply, consciously dismantling the very framework of global governance?

Well, we’re trying to figure that out ourselves here in Washington. I wish I could tell you there’s a clear roadmap, but there isn’t.

"The simplest way to put it is that President Trump is replacing what we used to call the rules based order, a phrase used for decades to describe the system the United States sought to uphold, with a power based order where, put simply, might makes right and the strongest get their way."

What concerns me, and I think what should concern Ukraine, is that President Trump seems to want a world in which powerful countries control their own spheres of influence. For example, in the case of Venezuela, he has made it clear that he views the Western Hemisphere, the region north and south of the United States, as America’s territory.

He even speaks about a so-called “Donroe Doctrine,” a modern twist on President James Monroe’s doctrine from the 1820s, which argued that no foreign interference should be allowed in the Western Hemisphere.

"Meanwhile, he seems prepared to leave Europe to fight it out with Russia and to step back from that confrontation."

And that is deeply worrying, not only for Ukraine, but for every country in Europe that depends on Europe’s security guarantees.

So we are waiting to understand more clearly what Trump intends to do. I think the pressure on him to remain engaged in Europe and to stay involved in supporting Ukraine is strong, both within the Republican Party and across the United States more broadly. But it is still an open question. As we say, it is still up for grabs. Nothing has been decided yet.

But in this case, the Monroe Doctrine, against the backdrop of Russia’s aggression not only against Ukraine but also the possibility of further aggression against Europe, essentially amounts to abandoning Europe and sacrificing the interests of the European Union.

To put it bluntly: General Ben Hodges, who once commanded U.S. forces in Europe, told me publicly in our conversation that the Trump administration had effectively given the European Union “the middle finger.” That’s a direct quote. And so, understandably, we can expect enormous pressure from the Russians.

So in your view, how will the U.S. administration behave in this critically difficult situation? In particular, I’m referring to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

"I’ve been encouraged that the Trump team, led by his son in law Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, seems to be serious about providing security guarantees for Ukraine that are, as they put it, Article 5 like, NATO like guarantees."

They worked hard on this in Paris during the meeting of the coalition of the willing. And I think they understand that without security guarantees, the war will simply restart and Trump will end up in a mess. That is not in his interest. So I find that encouraging.

The second point is that we are now in January, and Ukraine is demonstrating, to Russia and to the world, that it is not going to give up territory easily. The fears of a breakthrough in Donetsk near Pokrovsk have proved premature.

"Ukrainian forces have done an amazing job holding the line and have been even more innovative in their use of drones."

And this war is continuing into 2026. It remains as terrible for Ukraine as ever, but it is worse for Russia. In itself, that is a kind of victory. It shows Trump, it shows Europe, it shows the world that Ukraine is not about to collapse.

Ukraine does not have to make a deal right now because it is still very much in the fight. So those are the key elements. Security guarantees are improving, and Ukraine is showing that it is not on the verge of collapse.

Unfortunately, the Russians have been given time. Last autumn, the Trump administration promised them two new, tough sanctions packages. The word “Tomahawk” was even mentioned.

The Kremlin reacted with near hysteria. But those Tomahawk missiles are still sitting in storage somewhere — in Minnesota or Arizona. Meanwhile, Russia is carrying out a massive campaign to destroy our energy infrastructure. As you rightly note, we are now facing a winter collapse in a number of Ukrainian cities. Put bluntly, this is a genocidal practice: Ukrainian civilians are dying every single day.

And at the same time, we have to acknowledge that Russia has effectively been granted six months. So in your view, if we talk about the pace of pressure on Russia and its willingness to negotiate, is there any sense that in the next one, two, or three months the Russians may be prepared to seriously engage with what has been developed over the past couple of months?

I mean the talks between Ukraine and Europe, the talks between Europeans and the Americans, and then the trilateral consultations. There now seems to be a consolidated position shared by Ukraine, Europe, and the United States — but in situations like this, the Russians usually say “no.”

Yes, so far the Russians have effectively said no.

"As I’ve said on your show before, and in remarks I’ve given in Kyiv, Ukraine’s greatest strength since this war began has been its ability to say no. Ukraine has repeatedly said no to deals that would have forced concessions it is not prepared to accept. It has said, “No, we’re not going to make that deal. You cannot force us to make that deal.”"

At some point, I believe there will be a deal that is in Ukraine’s interest, and I hope Ukraine will be able to negotiate a settlement to end this war. But we should not forget that the power to say no does not belong only to Putin. It belongs to Ukraine, to President Zelensky, and to the Ukrainian people.

I have other comments, but I will leave it at this: that resolve is truly your strongest weapon.

I’d like to ask you more broadly about the state of relations between the U.S. administration and the Ukrainian government.

Our negotiators have spent many hours in discussions with people close to President Trump. But at the same time, as Jan Brzezinski, the son of the renowned geopolitician Zbigniew Brzezinski, told me, there were signals coming from the Trump administration to the European Union urging Europeans not to extend to Ukraine the so-called “reparations loan.” Europe later revisited that decision, and we did receive the funds. Without that money, we would have faced a financial collapse.

So I want to ask you: what channels of communication, and perhaps even pressure, are being used?

Ukraine is in an extremely difficult position, but we have one crucial thing: moral legitimacy. We were attacked. The enemy launched an unprovoked act of aggression. This has been formally documented in every relevant legal and diplomatic framework, including documents signed by the U.S. president.

So if you can, I’d like you to share any insights into how the U.S. administration is approaching its relationship with Ukraine’s leadership.

So I think the fact that Europe did, in the end, as you say, create the reparations loan shows that persistence and continued advocacy eventually pay off.

"In the United States, Senator Lindsey Graham, who has been a supporter of Ukraine, appears to have finally secured President Trump’s backing for a new Ukraine sanctions bill that would likely pass Congress easily."

Everyone this week is preoccupied with Iran, so we may have to wait a bit, but there does seem to be growing political support for it. And that would give the United States significant new leverage.

I also think the growing campaign against Russia’s shadow fleet, by whatever means necessary, is a new sign of Ukraine’s ability to pressure Russia and those who support it. Whether it involves naval drones taking out shadow fleet ships or simply tracking and monitoring them, in the Black Sea or the Baltic, it shows Ukraine’s ability to apply real pressure.

I would just add one final thought. I often think about the American Revolution, especially as we approach the 250th anniversary. We should remember that the United States, as a new country, lost almost every battle on the road to victory.

The Revolution began in 1775 and 1776, and the Americans lost again and again, until the final victory in 1781 at Yorktown. Why? Because they kept fighting. They stayed in the field despite relentless British pressure. And in the end, even the British Empire, unmatched in its strength, gave up.

It is a useful lesson to remember that even the United States began with a series of disasters that ultimately turned into victory.

Have any real mechanisms of oversight and control in the United States survived? At one time, American grant funded advocates would come to Ukraine and teach us how to build democracy. For better or worse, a certain democratic model did exist here. And we were always told that strong institutions were essential, institutions that would safeguard democratic achievements. Yet we have now seen that America has turned out to be defenseless, with total voluntarism concentrated in the hands of a single person. And behind that person, the American president, there are indeed extremely powerful global forces. And if we grasp the full seriousness of this moment, Trump is able to do what he is doing not only because he wants to, but because the American system is allowing him to do it. So do any real, effective instruments still exist to restrain the American president’s geopolitical, economic, or even military ambitions?

Trump is very arbitrary and capricious. He does not want to be seen as a loser. He also does not like to look weak. 

"So if he feels that Putin is ignoring him and making him look weak, he will not like that. And I think Ukrainians need to keep that in mind."

I think the American team, meaning Kushner, the president’s son in law, Rubio, Witkoff, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Kane, have gotten to know their Ukrainian counterparts and have become more comfortable working with them. Ukraine also has a new team. General Budanov is well known to the American negotiators. They respect him and take him seriously as a military professional.

I also think President Zelenskyy’s willingness to use NABU to crack down on corruption, and to confront corrupt networks, shows that Ukraine is serious about becoming a member of the European Union. That is a weapon too.

It shows Ukraine’s friends that Ukraine is not just struggling internally, but is a strong country that wants to be part of Europe and is ready to take its problems seriously. So I think all of these things are weapons.

Finally, Ukraine also has new tactical weapons on the way.

The Flamingo cruise missile may not be a Tomahawk, but from what I have read, it is very capable. And once it begins to be used against Russia, the Russians will take notice. Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian energy facilities, including through the use of other drones, has been increasingly effective. There is not much public discussion about it, but we all understand that the United States is providing support that helps Ukraine target these facilities with a high degree of precision.

So there are many things happening behind the scenes that should give Ukraine confidence that its core tactical capabilities and core support are continuing, even in this difficult period.

More broadly, do you happen to have any insight into why General Budanov and General Maliuk were removed from their posts?

In Budanov’s case, the situation seems relatively clear: he was moved to the President’s Office. But it is still hard to understand why, given how effective he was in his role. General Maliuk was also highly effective in his position. It is possible these decisions reflected certain signals coming from the United States. And more generally, some very strange developments are unfolding in our country.

So could you share what representatives of the American establishment want to see in Ukraine right now?

I do not think these changes were engineered in Washington. I was astonished by General Maliuk’s demotion, if you will, because from everything we knew, he had been very effective.

General Budanov’s rise to replace Yermak also puts an end to what outsiders have seen as an endless quarrel between Yermak and Budanov over all kinds of policies. 

"Now Budanov is in a position to coordinate policy and exercise control."

I was also surprised that his successor in military intelligence, the GUR, was not his own choice, but someone not associated with him. There are many things happening in Ukraine right now that I would not dare to comment on.

But Budanov is a strong and charismatic general. I have met him and spoken with him, and I take him seriously. He has also met with many senior American officials, who similarly take him seriously and see him as a tough figure. They know what they are dealing with.

So just one final point.

In this difficult period, it is essential for President Zelenskyy’s administration to be as strong as possible and as committed as possible to fighting corruption, because that is the pathway to Europe. And as I have said before on this show, I believe this war is ultimately about whether Ukraine becomes a European country.

If Ukraine can move quickly toward membership in the European Union, I would call that victory.

That is the path I want to see Ukraine follow. I want to see Ukraine do everything it can to fight corruption, to protect and strengthen its democracy, and to move toward elections as soon as it is appropriate. Ukraine needs to be, and to look to the world like, a European country. And that, as I said, is victory.

In Ukraine, we take the problem of global corruption extremely seriously, and we understand that corrupt officials must be held accountable. But Ukraine’s experience also shows that sometimes the most convenient way to fight corruption is to go after corruption among one’s political opponents. And I think this is not unique to Ukraine. In many democracies, for example in parts of Asia and Africa, anti corruption campaigns can become a tool of political marketing.

But what troubles me most is something else. I read the U.S. National Security Strategy as revised by the Trump administration, and it left me with an uneasy feeling that at some point we could be sold out. Unfortunately, this would not be the first time in American history.

I am not going to talk about the Vietnam War right now. But take Afghanistan, for example. There was a functioning, more or less democratic government there. We all remember the horror that followed. And if I am not mistaken, the key decision for America to withdraw from Afghanistan was made under Donald Trump.

I hope it will not either. The corruption in America today is so astounding that we are not really in a position to lecture anyone else.

But let me offer one final thought. From the very beginning of this war, Ukraine’s greatest strength has been Ukraine itself. Its leadership, its people, and its bravery on the battlefield.

Support from the United States has been crucial, especially in providing weapons. Support from Britain and other countries has also been important. But in the end, this is a fight that Ukraine is waging.

So in a way, all the crazy twists and turns of Trump’s policies do not change the core essence of this war. The heart of it is Ukraine’s resolve and Ukraine’s innovation on the battlefield. Ukraine is revolutionizing modern warfare.

This is one of the most extraordinary periods of military innovation I have seen in my fifty years of covering and writing about this subject. So I would urge people to remember that no matter what crazy thing is happening in Washington, even in this difficult, cold winter, it does not change the core of Ukraine’s commitment and, ultimately, Ukraine’s security, which is at home.

Unfortunately, conspiracy theories have started to look like reality. We now find ourselves living in a world that George Orwell once warned about. And if you add a few American dystopian blockbusters on top of that, we are entering a strange, fascinating, but deeply unsettling moment.

So I want to ask you directly: what is happening with Greenland? In your view, can this be resolved without bloodshed? Because I can’t help but imagine a nightmare scenario in which, within NATO, U.S. Marines begin deploying to Greenland, which is sovereign territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Danish border guards take up arms, and suddenly we are looking at something that, it seems, even Orwell never imagined.

"So, the story surrounding Greenland may seem crazy to your viewers, but if you think about it carefully, Trump’s desire for a stronger U.S. role in Greenland, both in security and in investment and mining, is not crazy."

The Arctic is the new battleground between the United States, Russia, and China. In the future, long after the war in Ukraine is over, it will remain a strategic arena. And it is in the West’s interest for Greenland to have stronger defenses.

I have assumed that some kind of agreement can be worked out between Denmark and the United States that would allow increased U.S. military activity there, as well as greater investment. I think the Danes are entirely ready for that.

Trump, the real estate man, wants to own it. But as my European friends have told me, the real issue is finding a landing zone for a deal, meaning terms that give the United States what it wants while still being acceptable to the people of Greenland and to Denmark. And I do not think it is impossible to find that formula.

And it makes sense, because Greenland really does matter. Trump is not crazy to say that the United States needs a stronger presence there.

As I understand it, Donald Trump has many more plans in mind, but in any case we will be watching very closely. And even though you and I, dear Mr. Ignatius, are right at the center of this storm, in Ukraine the Russians are determined to unleash hell. Could you also say a few words about the prospects for stopping Russian aggression?

So again, on the battlefield, Ukraine has been incredibly tough and creative in stopping the Russian breakthrough that many expected near Pokrovsk into western Donetsk.

That is something Ukrainians should be very proud of. And when it comes to the suffering Ukrainians are enduring under Russian missile and drone attacks in this cold winter, with not enough electricity or heat, there is really nothing any outsider can say except this: we admire your courage, and we see what you are going through.

Even in this freezing winter, you are surviving. And right now, that in itself is a kind of victory for Ukraine, simply getting through this extremely difficult period.

I wish I had more detailed insights, but above all, I just deeply respect what Ukraine is doing in these conditions: staying in the fight, holding society together, and keeping people united and supportive of their government.