Expert Giorgi Koberidze: If Washington exits Ukraine talks, it risks losing both - leadership and allies

Despite escalating tensions on the frontlines, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed readiness to negotiate with Russia’s leader in any format. However, a specific date and location for a potential meeting remain undecided. Meanwhile, Moscow refuses to agree to a temporary ceasefire, even as it publicly speaks of a “desire for lasting peace.” At the same time, Vladimir Putin visited Kursk, met with volunteers, and leveled new accusations against Kyiv.

In Washington, Ukraine is once again a focus of the political agenda. President Donald Trump was criticized in the Senate for allegedly abandoning Ukraine. A statement by Marco Rubio, which also referenced Georgia, sparked speculation about whether this signals a shift away from the region by a potential new administration. Front News spoke with international relations expert Giorgi Koberidze about these and other key developments.

– Mr. Giorgi, the topic of negotiations is back on the international agenda. How do you assess Zelenskyy’s readiness to meet with Putin? Why has it been so difficult to agree on a date and location? And could a meeting between Trump and Putin be a game-changer?

– I firmly believe that Putin has no real intention of achieving results through negotiations. He’s buying time and manipulating the process. What Putin is truly demanding is not peace—it’s capitulation. He isn’t just asking for the territories he has already annexed to be officially ceded; he also wants areas that he doesn’t even control yet. That’s why his demands are framed in such a way that negotiations lose their meaning.

As for Trump and Putin—a meeting between them is realistic and could have influence, but we must not forget: Putin is a far more experienced politician and a better manipulator. He honed these skills back when he worked in Dresden. That’s why, after just a few hours of conversation, Trump’s stance would often shift significantly in Russia’s favor, even after making rather tough statements about sanctions, for instance. This is a clear example of how effectively Putin uses communication to his own advantage.

– So, you're saying Putin’s talk of “lasting peace” is merely diplomatic theater and that in reality, a military solution remains on the table?

– Exactly. It’s just a façade. According to the logic of war, at least one side must be convinced it is losing. But today, both Russia and Ukraine firmly believe victory is within their grasp. Putin’s main objective is to drag the US into nonconstructive negotiations, stall weapons deliveries to Ukraine, and convince Europe that this process must be halted. The American weapons Europe supplies to Ukraine are delivered with Washington’s consent—and dismantling that support structure is Putin’s goal. He wants to remove the US from the negotiating table and leave Ukraine isolated.

– Vladimir Putin visited Kursk and accused Ukraine of provocations. In your opinion, are these visits aimed at internal mobilization, or are they a signal to the West that Russia won’t give up its strategic positions? And could Moscow be preparing a new offensive in the Kursk direction?

– Putin’s goal is twofold—on one hand, internal mobilization and PR; on the other, an actual maneuver. Troop movements in the Kursk direction may be meant to distract the Ukrainian army and allow Russia to launch a more effective offensive elsewhere. For context, Ukraine initially attempted to strengthen its positions in that region, but at this stage, the initiative may be shifting back to Moscow.

In terms of manpower—Russia still has human and military resources, including professional contract soldiers. There’s also a reserve made up of current and former military personnel. Additionally, prisoners who are released after 6–12 months of military service continue to be utilized. Putin still has mobilized and retrained forces, which means he retains sufficient resources to continue the war.

– At the Senate hearing, Donald Trump was once again criticized over his Ukraine policy. Can we say that his foreign strategy is stuck, or does he still have the potential to influence the course of the conflict?

– A few weeks ago, Marco Rubio openly stated that if negotiations yield no results, the US will step aside and leave the negotiating table. That directly signals that such a scenario is already being considered in Washington. Unfortunately, that’s a foreseeable reality. If the US pulls out of the process, it won’t just lose its leadership role—it will also lose its allies. In addition, the US will forfeit its leverage over the financial and military support it currently provides Ukraine. Putin understands this perfectly, and he is working to exploit those weaknesses.

By Elza Papoishvili