The recent meeting between United States and Russian delegations in Saudi Arabia has sparked tensions between former President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Zelenskyy expressed dissatisfaction over Ukraine’s exclusion from the February 18 negotiations, while Trump responded by criticizing Ukraine’s leadership, claiming Zelenskyy has a 4% approval rating and that elections should be held in Ukraine. In turn, Zelenskyy countered that he currently has 57% support and accused Trump of operating in a “disinformation space”.
In an interview with Front News, Nika Chitadze, an expert in the geopolitics of the Caucasus and Black Sea region, world politics, energy security, and strategic affairs, discusses potential developments in the Ukraine conflict and assesses Trump’s proposed plan as “highly risky”.
Q: The US-Russia meeting in Saudi Arabia has caused significant discontent, as neither Ukraine nor Europe was invited. Zelenskyy responded forcefully, saying that he would not comply with any Russian ultimatum. Trump’s reaction was equally strong, asserting that Europe had three years to end the war and labeling Zelenskyy as incompetent. What is Trump’s motivation behind this approach, and how should this situation be interpreted?
A: Russia is likely attempting to negotiate a redistribution of global spheres of influence. Putin appears to have identified weaknesses in Trump’s strategic priorities. We have seen Trump’s statements concerning US interests in the Gulf of Mexico, the Panama Canal, Greenland, and even the de facto control over Gaza in the Middle East. This suggests that Trump may be shifting his focus toward these regions, potentially creating an opportunity for Putin to propose a realignment. Russia may seek increased maneuverability in the post-Soviet space – particularly regarding Ukraine – in exchange for turning a blind eye to US ambitions elsewhere.
On the other hand, Ukraine’s firm stance in refusing to accept any agreement made without its participation is commendable. Ukraine is fighting not only for its sovereignty and territorial integrity but also for broader international peace and stability.
Q: Trump has repeatedly claimed that he has a plan to end the war, though no official document has been released. However, the US Secretary of Defense recently mentioned at the Munich Security Conference that Ukraine must abandon NATO aspirations and accept a new geopolitical reality, different from the pre-2014 status quo. Additionally, reports suggest the US is seeking access to Ukraine’s vast mineral resources, worth an estimated $500 billion. Given these conditions, does this plan amount to Ukraine’s capitulation?
A: Absolutely. Ukraine must not agree to any deal that compromises its territorial integrity. Even if Russia were to withdraw from Donetsk and Luhansk while retaining control over Crimea, this would still be entirely unacceptable. Such a settlement would allow Russia to claim victory, reinforcing its aggressive expansionist policies. In reality, I doubt Putin would even agree to withdraw from Donetsk and Luhansk. He would likely portray any agreement as a triumph, asserting that he had successfully “liberated” these regions from what he describes as a “neo-Nazi Ukrainian regime.”
From an American perspective, Trump’s strategy may involve demanding the maximum while being willing to settle for less. As for Ukraine’s mineral wealth, significant deposits of titanium, lithium, gas, and coal exist in both Russian-occupied and Ukrainian-controlled territories. The presence of shale gas reserves in the Black Sea near Crimea further complicates negotiations.
Q: Following the Saudi Arabia meeting, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the European Union might have to lift sanctions on Russia. There is speculation that Russia has demanded similar concessions from the US. Could sanctions be lifted in exchange for access to Ukrainian and Russian-controlled mineral resources?
A: While nothing is off the table, I remain skeptical that Russia would agree to withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory under any circumstances. If a deal is to be struck, it must include Russia’s full withdrawal and robust security guarantees for Ukraine. Only then can discussions take place regarding resource access and investment. Ukraine is open to American investment, particularly in its mining sector, but the primary concern remains security. Unfortunately, given Russia’s strategic objectives, any agreement that does not involve its full retreat is unlikely.
Q: If neither Ukraine nor Russia agrees to current proposals, what possible scenarios could unfold?
A: The situation remains highly volatile, with two primary scenarios emerging. The pessimistic scenario involves prolonged warfare, with Trump shifting his focus to domestic issues and European leaders assuming greater responsibility for Ukraine’s security. Meetings among European leaders on February 17 and 19 indicate that Europe is preparing for this possibility.
The more optimistic scenario is that Trump may use economic leverage to pressure Russia into accepting a US-backed proposal. If Russia refuses, Trump could impose stricter sanctions and increase military aid to Ukraine. However, given the unpredictability of Trump’s statements and policies, it is difficult to predict the final outcome.
Q: Trump has largely sidelined Europe in these negotiations, arguing that the EU had ample time to end the war. Why is he excluding Europe from the talks?
A: This is a major strategic miscalculation. Trump views Europe as a competitor rather than a partner, possibly influenced by advisors like Elon Musk and others. However, the US and Europe share fundamental democratic values, making transatlantic cooperation crucial.
While Trump may attempt to bypass Europe, the EU has already recognized the need to strengthen its defense and security policies. Whether Trump acknowledges it or not, Europe remains a formidable geopolitical player. Ultimately, he will have no choice but to involve European leaders in negotiations concerning the future of Ukraine and regional security.
Q: If Ukraine is divided and Trump concedes to Putin’s demands, do you foresee Russia attempting further territorial expansion, particularly into the Baltic states and Georgia?
A: Absolutely. This is precisely what European leaders fear. If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will be emboldened to pursue further expansion. History has already shown this pattern: in 2008, Georgia warned the world about Russia’s ambitions, only to be met with skepticism. Then came Crimea in 2014, and now, in 2022, we see Russia seeking half of Ukraine.
If Putin believes he has won in Ukraine, he may set his sights on restoring what he perceives as the Soviet Union’s lost territories. The Baltic states are particularly vulnerable, given their past as part of the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union. Georgia also faces significant risks. Despite economic sanctions, Russia continues to finance its military operations, benefiting from trade relations with China, India, and other nations.
Conceding to Russia now would not lead to peace – it would merely lay the groundwork for the next conflict.
By Elza Paposhvili
