Pointing towards Russia’s power, Trump suggests Ukraine to show restraint

A deal ushering in peace for Ukraine was what US President Trump stated in an interview. As per the statement, Trump said, “Zelenskyy was fighting a much bigger entity, much bigger, much more powerful. He shouldn’t have done that, because we could have made a deal.”

On Thursday night, while talking to one of the anchors from a news channel, Trump said that Ukraine shouldn’t have fought Russia when Russia invaded it.

Trump stated, “I could have made that deal so easily, and Zelenskyy decided that ‘I want to fight.” Instead, he argued that Zelenskyy ought to have made a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to avoid further aggravation of the war.

About Ukraine, Trump again stated that the country “had the bravery to use the equipment, but in the end that’s a war (that) has to be settled.” Meanwhile, the United States and European allies have supported Ukraine in its response to Russian aggression. They have been supplying huge amounts of military equipment to the country.

He further reiterated Zelenskyy not being an angel, while talking during a leading news channel interview. Also, he added, that the former shouldn’t have allowed the war to happen.

Comparing both sides, Trump acknowledged the difficulty in bringing Putin to the negotiating table. According to him, Zelenskyy has shown intent toward reaching settlement. As per Trump, he was willing to increase pressure against Russia, including ‘massive tariffs’ and ‘big sanctions’. That would happen if Russia did not move to “settle this war soon.”

While quoting the greater number of Russian Tanks vis a vis Ukraine, Trump said that the latter couldn’t have fought those. Ukraine, a U.S. ally, was attacked by Russia, a U.S. adversary in February 2022, followed by thousands of casualties.

On being asked about other alternatives, than responding to the aggression from the Russian side, Ukraine could have adopted, a White House spokesperson was unavailable for comment. Likewise, in Washington, the Ukrainian Embassy also didn’t respond to President Trump’s statement.

The former Biden administration had directed sanctions against Russia when it invaded Ukraine, making the justification for the war and other related issues. While he was in office, former President Joe Biden often highlighted the US-Ukraine alliance. While sending huge amounts of aid to the beleaguered country, he used to praise Zelenskyy for his leadership. 

Despite Trump’s claims about ending the war within a day, there is an absence of its end any sooner. The U.S. President also talked about Putin not being an angel in an earlier interview with a leading news channel. Trump told the reporters before meeting Zelenskyy, “We’re going to work very much with both parties to try and get this settled and get it worked out.” While meeting Zelenskyy in September, he said about ending the war with a deal “that is good for both sides.”

Amid the seemingly saner voices about a peace deal, many like Seth Jones from CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) state that a peace agreement is ‘highly unlikely’ in the near future. According to Jones, Putin might be in an advantageous position should Trump assume the role of a mediator. That means he will be able to give a ‘go-by’ to the European participation during the talks.  

Jones also said that Ukraine was focused on causing significant damage to the Russian forces. By responding in this way, Ukraine aims to show the rest of the world, particularly U.S. and Europe, about its commitment to fight and protect its sovereignty. According to him, “Success on the battlefield has been key to securing continued military and financial support.”

There are, however, people in the U.S. establishment who while highlighting Ukraine as a victim, would like to put the whole onus of stopping the war on Russia. For instance, a former U.S. foreign service officer specializing in Central and Eastern Europe, Colin Cleary, says, “Russian President Vladimir Putin could stop the war at any moment. … He’s the aggressor, and Ukraine is the victim,” he says. Ukraine can’t stop the war. … They’re being attacked.”

Cleary, also an adjunct Professor at George Washington University, said Ukraine, in exchange would need security guarantees—“not necessarily NATO membership, but some sort of interposition force through European allies that would be there as a deterrent.”

Nataliia Galibarenko, Ukraine’s outgoing envoy to NATO, while talking to National Public Radio (NPR) said that she is often suggested about other alternatives other than NATO. She said that this was obviously meant on their part to protect Ukraine without NATO membership. She said, “I always ask them, ‘Why should (there) be some(thing) alternative invented specifically by or for Ukraine?”

She further added that “it’s very difficult to respond to these diplomats.”

Yet another instance is of Michael McFaul, Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia. Recently he told National Public Radio (NPR) that he believed, “out of tragedy, not out of any enthusiasm,” that Zelenskyy is being forced into a “realistic assessment of the situation on the battlefield.”

According to McFaul, Zelenskyy will accept a continued Russian occupation of some of the Ukrainian territory. And that might happen sooner than later, as per the latter’s statement, said McFaul.

Meanwhile, for Russia, any association with NATO might be a red herring to the country, despite the strong inclination of Ukraine to have an alliance membership. And clearly, Ukraine can’t afford to do so, which is, but, a nonstarter for the Russian leader.