Ahead of President Donald Trump’s address to Congress, his National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, underscored the administration’s readiness for new negotiations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. However, this willingness comes with a condition—Zelenskyy must alter his position.
Waltz stated that, in his view, the Ukrainian leader is not prepared for peace talks. He also tacitly acknowledged the possibility of Zelenskyy’s resignation, suggesting that such discussions became more relevant after the last meeting between the US and Ukrainian presidents in the White House’s Oval Office.
Yet, the central question remains unanswered—what does the US administration genuinely seek from Zelenskyy? What constitutes a ‘change in position,’ and how does it relate to the alleged reluctance to pursue peace?
If Trump had secured any tangible agreements with Russian President Vladimir Putin, even a temporary ceasefire, it might have been possible to argue that Zelenskyy is resisting peace.
Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance attempted to convey to Zelenskyy that a ceasefire must precede discussions on security guarantees.
While Zelenskyy may disagree with this approach, the reality remains that Trump has not yet convinced Putin to accept even a short-term ceasefire—despite proposals from French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Their initiative sought to halt hostilities in the air, at sea, and against energy infrastructure.
The Kremlin, however, has consistently rejected ceasefires, with both Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserting that Moscow seeks a peace settlement based on eliminating the so-called ‘root causes’ of the conflict.
Even if Trump were to acknowledge Putin’s narrative that the conflict stems from Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration aspirations, the critical issue remains: how does Putin envisage resolving this ‘root cause’? And what does he expect from Trump?
Notably, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel once assured Putin that Ukraine’s NATO accession would not occur during her tenure. His response was “You won’t be Chancellor forever. And then they’ll become a member of NATO. And I want to prevent that.”
The implication is clear: Russia plays a long game, while Trump, constrained by US constitutional term limits, is in his final term. Regardless of political shifts in Washington, Trump’s tenure is finite, and his ability to enforce a long-term security agreement is questionable.
Trump’s insistence on ceasefire discussions, therefore, lacks a critical component—an agreement from Russia to halt hostilities. Without such a commitment, the pressure on Ukraine to change its stance appears one-sided.
Meanwhile, the US administration has introduced another argument: Ukraine’s supposed failure to capitalise on economic cooperation with the United States, particularly regarding natural resources.
Waltz suggested that Zelenskyy has lost an opportunity to forge economic ties between the US and Ukraine, particularly in the resource sector.
However, this claim raises multiple issues. Firstly, the extent of Ukraine’s exploitable natural resources and their commercial viability remain uncertain. Secondly, without American security guarantees, few investors would risk engaging in a country under continuous military threat. Even if Trump personally guaranteed stability, his tenure is limited, while investments in resource extraction require long-term commitments.
If no US security assurances are in place, how does economic engagement protect Ukraine? Would the presence of American firms extracting resources deter Russian aggression? Would a future US president commit military support if Russia targeted American business interests in Ukraine?
The historical record suggests otherwise. No US administration has been willing to risk direct military confrontation with Russia over business ventures.
Given Russia’s nuclear arsenal, the notion of Washington launching military retaliation over disrupted investments remains implausible.
In practical terms, the Trump administration’s demands on Ukraine seem to exist in a hypothetical space rather than within a coherent diplomatic framework. If the goal were genuinely to facilitate peace, the administration would need to secure at least a preliminary ceasefire agreement with Russia before expecting Ukrainian concessions. Without this, claims of Ukrainian intransigence appear misplaced.
If Trump fails to extract meaningful compromises from Putin, he faces two choices: acknowledge that the problem lies in Moscow’s refusal to negotiate or shift blame onto Zelenskyy.
However, abandoning support for Ukraine would not enhance Trump’s standing. His administration’s failure to extract concessions from Putin would remain the defining aspect of his first months in office.
Ultimately, while Trump’s rhetoric focuses on imposing conditions on Kyiv, it is Russia that has shown no inclination toward de-escalation. As long as this remains the case, any demands for Ukraine to ‘change its position’ lack substantive grounding in diplomatic reality.
Read also:
Zelenskyy Dismisses Calls for Apology to Trump Amid US-Ukraine Tensions
