Zelenskyy's Office: Trump wants quick solutions, but war cannot end according to Putin's scenario

Contents

• On the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump and whether the end of the war with Russia is near
• On the European Contact Group on Ukraine
• On the idea of France and Poland sending 40,000 peacekeepers to Ukraine
• On security guarantees without NATO membership
• Is there a conflict with the US over Ukraine's refusal to mobilize from the age of 18
• On Putin's defeat in Syria and how it will affect Ukraine

On the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump and whether the end of the war with Russia is near

(All materials about the meeting with Trump, – ed.) are coming through Western media, citing anonymous sources. Therefore, this has little to do with how the process will unfold further.

A ceasefire can be implemented immediately. But this would mean encouraging Russia to continue its expansion at Ukraine’s expense, with a transitional phase where you accumulate resources. Because Russia has not achieved the objectives it set for itself. These goals are much broader than just capturing parts of Donetsk or Luhansk regions.

There are no official proposals on how to end (the war, – ed.), other than the official positions of Ukraine and Russia.

Russia, through Lavrov, Peskov, and Putin, says that they want to take four regions. They want Ukraine to not only refuse NATO but also abandon its army and NATO weapons. They want a small army with police functions, no more. And they want Russian culture, language, and information space to dominate Ukraine.

Ukraine’s position is clear: it is not possible to end the war at Ukraine’s expense without destroying international law. As for security guarantees, the president speaks about this publicly. Not only does the war need to end with a legal framework, but it is also necessary to understand that if Russia is not defeated and politically transformed, it will always insist on the right to dominate through violence in Europe.

Ukraine does not want this. Ukraine wants to understand whether it has the right, like any other country, to be a member of a collective alliance. If you do not want an invitation to NATO, let’s discuss how to protect Ukraine’s territory from Russian encroachments in other ways.

Trump wants immediate decisions that will be pro-American in terms of informational effect. But there is one nuance. You cannot end this war within Putin’s scenario and consider it finished. Because without forcing Russia – that’s Putin’s scenario. And it would be strange if the Trump administration wants to play into Putin’s hands.

Russia continues to use almost all conventional weapons. But it understands that defeating Ukraine in any sense is impossible. For Russia today, another context is important – the nullification of the reputation of the United States. To temporarily end the war in Ukraine on Russia’s terms and show who the global leader is.

On the European Contact Group on Ukraine

The European alliance will form in fact. Because it’s impossible to pretend that there are no risks. These risks are generated by the Middle East, waves of migrants, Russian coups in Africa, and the war in Ukraine. Pressure on Europe is increasing more and more. And here we need to move to a different concept of a pan-European security architecture.

We see Poland's statements regarding the rearming of its army. How actively it is purchasing various types of weapons, air defense, aviation, and artillery. We see a completely different rhetoric from France and Germany. This is a rejection of the concept that Russia is an unconditional partner of Europe.

They understand that Ukraine’s role will be much greater than it was over the 30 years before the full-scale invasion. First, Ukraine is a subject, and second, it has a competence that no other country in Europe has – the readiness to counter any military aggression.

And that is why such an alliance is possible. For me, it is puzzling why the US continues to consider itself a great country if it renounces advancing or defending its values. I don’t understand why other countries, like China, would build not an economic platform with BRICS, but a political alliance that will exert pressure on global influence markets.

On the idea of France and Poland sending 40,000 peacekeepers to Ukraine

Negotiations (about ending the war, – ed.) may begin in winter, but let's be honest – these will be negotiations about a certain freeze. But these negotiations can take place when you have the tools to coerce Russia. Because Russia, which threatens with an Oreshnik group strike, comparable in force to a nuclear one (something Putin constantly claims), will not agree to any armed mediators in the conflict zone. Just as it did not agree to missions on the Georgia–Russia line.

Why should they agree if they believe they can constantly apply pressure and take more territory? They will build fortification lines and station 150,000 or 300,000 of their troops in those territories. They will perceive this as a testing ground to, for example, move towards the Dnipro river over the next five years.

I don’t understand why Russia, which you’re not coercing, should voluntarily agree to a scenario where 40,000 mediators won’t allow the implementation of the creeping occupation of Ukraine.

I like the position of (Polish Prime Minister - ed.) Tusk. Given Poland’s presidency in European institutions, it would be desirable for it to have a firm position in the negotiations. But the negotiation process itself, where there will be ultimatum proposals on the table, and Russia will see all the materials demoralizing Western countries and Ukraine... Why should we expect a positive or even neutral outcome from these negotiations?

On security guarantees without NATO membership

President Zelenskyy realistically assesses the situation and offers available tools. He says that if international law exists and there is a willing alliance with accumulated resources, there is no need to invent other tools that won’t work or will be blocked at some stage.

What other security guarantees could be proposed? For me, this is terra incognita. If you're not a member of an alliance, you can only voluntarily receive something if a particular country is willing to provide it. But if you are a potential or actual member of an alliance, everything that is in the stockpiles should be available for your defense. This is what security guarantees for countries like Ukraine regarding Russia are about.

Russia understands only coercion through force, and this requires collective alliances. So, I don’t understand the discussions about not being invited to NATO but at the same time being ready to send a 40,000-strong contingent. It has to be clear – either an invitation to NATO, demands on Russia, and a freeze – at least it’s clear how this looks with a contingent. Or not. It can't be that Russia insists on "no NATO, no exercises, no weapons," but at the same time, there will be a NATO peacekeeping contingent.

And there is the military component. We need to stop outlining scenarios like Germany suggests, that in five years, we should be ready to fight Russia. Why would you want to fight it? The Russian army of the 2022 invasion and the army today in Donbas look different. Today, Russia understands what a big war is and how to use resources. They are investing in modern types of warfare, using combined attacks, building fortifications differently, and so on.

If the war continues, in five years, it will be a fundamentally different army. Why would Europe, which has no experience of war at all, be able to counter it? Why take it to that point? Today, Russia could still be defeated, as there is weaponry in the stockpiles.

Is there a conflict with the US over Ukraine's refusal to mobilize from the age of 18

No. Why mobilize people from the age of 18? So that, without sufficient high-tech equipment, a person with small arms would sit in a trench against guided missiles?

Ukraine is facing difficult mobilization processes. If Ukraine were saturated with weapons and training centers, the physical and psychological preparation, as well as weapon usage skills, would be completely different. If we solve the task of providing a parity of weapons, then changes in the mobilization process may be possible. But simply saying "Mobilize 18-year-olds, and it will solve the war issue" is nonsense.

There is no conflict here. There is a discussion that is brought into the public space, although it is an internal discussion at the military level. How can this solve the issue of Ukraine's lack of proper weaponry in the public space?

On Putin's defeat in Syria and how it will affect Ukraine

It is undoubtedly fair to talk about Putin's defeat in Syria. For Russia, it was important to maintain control over Bashar al-Assad's regime. They prevented the use of Syrian territory, for example, for the Qatar-Syria-Türkiye-Southern Europe gas pipeline.

Moreover, the destabilization of the Middle East in general diverted resources from Ukraine, primarily those of the US and the UK. Additionally, Russia tested its tactics of bombing civilian populations with guided missiles and bombs. We saw what they did in Palmyra, Aleppo, and Idlib.

This is not the destruction of Russia, but it certainly marks the destruction of the remnants of Putin's geopolitical reputation. What happened in Syria provides valuable insight into Russia's military capabilities and its weaponry. However, there is a negative side. Russia will be able to use the equipment left behind in its war against Ukraine. For Russia, the destruction of Ukraine is a fundamental position of "either dominance or total collapse."

By destroying Ukraine, Russia remains a global neo-imperial power. Losing in Ukraine means the Russian Federation, as we have known it in recent decades, will no longer exist. It will be a different country with different governments, or perhaps even with different geographical borders.