Trump won’t let Russia claim victory in Ukraine, Georgian analyst Khatiashvili

The recent high-level meetings in Washington and Alaska, where US President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, and later shared details of his talks with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, have attracted global media and expert attention. The main topic of discussion was ending the ongoing war in Ukraine and reaching a peace agreement. But how realistic is peace at this stage, when disagreements over territorial issues and security guarantees remain deep? International affairs analyst Giorgi Khatiashvili spoke to Front News about the challenges and prospects of the negotiations.

Q. How do you assess the meeting in Washington, where US President Donald Trump met with European leaders along with Zelenskyy, and then shared details of his meeting with Putin in Alaska? What are your expectations, and what impression did you get from the statements made after the meeting?

A. At this stage, I remain very skeptical about the possibility of a ceasefire. The peace agreement mentioned by Trump, which envisions moving from a ceasefire to a direct peace treaty, is an extremely difficult initiative to implement. Take the Korean example: a ceasefire was signed in 1953, but no peace treaty has been concluded to this day. Similarly, when Putin demands not only the “evacuation” of Donbass but also raises the issues of Russian language status and demilitarization, it becomes clear that such matters cannot be resolved in a week or two.

Q. What are the main obstacles to Trump’s proposal? Do you see any security guarantees for Ukraine from the US side? Were the statements made by the US President convincing?

A. At the very least, Putin is demanding the “evacuation” of Donbass. For three years now, he has been unable to break through the defensive barriers there and occupy the territories. Now he is demanding that they be handed to him without a fight. Effectively, he is saying that he will concede the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, which he has also failed to fully conquer. In return, Putin suggests he might agree to certain security arrangements.

The outlines of this should have been clarified in Washington, but they were not. The only content I saw was the idea that if European troops were deployed on the front line, they would receive American backing. But as always, the real issue lies in the details.

Q. To what extent would Putin accept European troops on the front line? And does America agree to this? We know that Russia is categorically opposed.

A. Yes, Putin does not agree at this stage. But this raises a fundamental question: what is the actual security guarantee for Ukraine from America? Who protects Ukraine if Russia attacks again? A US-Russia war would be a nuclear war.

Trump has already said this will not involve ground defense and that US servicemembers will not be stationed in the conflict zone. Instead, it would be air support. But then what kind of “air support” is this? If Putin strikes Ukraine again, what will the Americans do? If American aircraft bomb Russian positions, that would already constitute a US-Russia war.

This is why I find the concept of “not NATO but something like NATO” illogical. Essentially, the US is saying: “We won’t call it NATO, but we will provide security guarantees.” Russia opposes Ukraine’s NATO membership, but simply changing the name does not alter the essence. The main player is still America, which makes it difficult for the parties to agree. Therefore, the war will continue.

Q. Zelenskyy has said he is ready to discuss territorial issues only with Putin in a trilateral format. Media reports suggest that Putin has invited Trump and Zelenskyy to Moscow, but Zelenskyy has already declined. How do you interpret this offer? And what concessions, if any, can Ukraine realistically make now?

A. It is inconceivable that Ukrainians would cede territories that Russia has failed to capture for three years. And what is Russia offering in return - two small parts of Kharkiv and Sumy? Putin’s invitation - “at least let Zelenskyy come” - is essentially meaningless.

Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect that anything substantive would be decided at a personal meeting with Putin. The strategic situation has not changed. Will Ukraine surrender Donbass? In exchange for what? Russia’s promise not to attack again? I do not believe such promises constitute real security guarantees. If genuine guarantees existed, Ukraine would already be in NATO.

And what difference is there between NATO membership and stationing Polish and Finnish troops on the front line? America does not want to assume this responsibility. Would NATO really stand aside if Polish troops came under Russian attack? This raises a thousand unanswered questions.

For this reason, I am deeply skeptical of the process. There is a strategic deadlock from the very start of the negotiations. Putin has said many times that unless he gets Donbass, he will not stop fighting.

Q. So, what is Russia’s main interest in these negotiations? Is it simply to buy time and strengthen its position on the front line? Do the Americans - and Trump in particular - realize this? Or is Trump so eager to fulfill his promise that he is prepared to end the war at almost any cost, even by sacrificing Ukrainian territory?

A. Yes, Putin’s army continues to attack while simultaneously consolidating its front-line positions. At the same time, this “peace game” has delayed some sanctions, which clearly buys him time.

Zelenskyy, too, is forced to play along. Earlier this year, in February, he told the Americans that Putin was only stalling. We saw the result in Washington. Now Zelenskyy is deliberately pushing Putin to make outrageous demands, so that when they fail, he can show Washington that negotiations are futile.

If these talks collapse soon, this will be the last attempt to settle the conflict peacefully. After that, the war will continue until one side gains a decisive advantage on the battlefield.

Q. If Trump’s peace efforts fail and the war drags on, his image could suffer significantly. What might his reaction be? Do you expect him to actually impose the sanctions he has announced on Russia? Or might he instead begin pressuring Ukraine - for example, by halting arms sales to Europe or limiting intelligence support?

A. No matter how much Trump likes Zelenskyy, I do not believe Trump will allow Russia to claim a “victory” in Ukraine. That does not serve America’s strategic interests either.

He will continue providing Ukraine with some degree of assistance. But unfortunately, the war will continue. At this stage, I see no prerequisites for de-escalation. Trump will likely impose additional sanctions on Russia, but Putin still has enough resources to keep the war going.

By Elza Paposhvili