The world eagerly awaits the outcome of negotiations between the United States President and Ukraine. Following a tense exchange in the Oval Office in late February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Ukrainian and US teams had resumed discussions aimed at achieving peace. He expressed hope that a crucial meeting would take place the following week.
At an extraordinary summit in Brussels this week, European leaders reaffirmed that the security and defense of Ukraine are integral to the security and defense of Europe. Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa assured President Zelenskyy that Europe would not abandon Ukraine in its pursuit of lasting peace.
What direction might the ongoing war in Ukraine take? What steps can Europe take to ensure Ukraine’s security? Will Europe have a place in future peace negotiations? Sergi Kapanadze, the Head of Georgia’s Reforms Associates and an expert in international relations, discusses these and other pressing issues in an interview with Front News.
Q: US President Donald Trump said that he had received an important letter from President Zelenskyy indicating Ukraine’s willingness to return to the negotiating table and sign an agreement on minerals. Why do you think Zelenskyy changed his stance, and should such an agreement be signed without security guarantees?
A: The differences in approach between the Presidents of Ukraine and the US have become evident. Trump has prioritized an immediate ceasefire and a minerals agreement that would solidify American interests in Ukraine. Initially, Zelenskyy did not reject this outright, but his primary concern remains a broader peace deal with strong security guarantees. His skepticism is understandable, given Putin’s history of violating previous ceasefires.
This divergence in views likely contributed to the highly publicized Oval Office confrontation, which did not leave a positive impression. However, it is encouraging that both sides acknowledge the need for a comprehensive agreement in which the minerals deal plays a key role. The recent resolution of their dispute and Zelenskyy’s reaffirmation of Ukraine’s commitment to negotiations demonstrate that Kyiv is not compromising on its core interests. This minerals agreement could serve as an initial step toward a more significant peace settlement.
Q: Following the Oval Office dispute, Trump suspended aid to Ukraine, effective March 4. Do you think this was a tactical move to pressure Zelenskyy, and will Trump continue using this leverage?
A: Yes, this was likely a tactical maneuver rather than a strategic shift aimed at undermining Ukraine or ensuring its defeat. Ukraine remains strong enough to withstand such temporary measures. We have seen similar suspensions before, such as the six-month pause in US military aid. Hopefully, this is merely a short-term strategy and does not indicate a fundamental change in US policy toward Ukraine.
Q: Trump has stated that European peacekeepers will not be deployed to Ukraine, emphasizing that “they are fighting for themselves.” Does this imply ambiguity in the security guarantees for Ukraine post-ceasefire? How do you envision this process unfolding?
A: It is crucial to assess Trump’s statements in the broader context of actual policy rather than focusing solely on rhetoric. At this stage, countries such as France, the United Kingdom, and Turkey appear willing to establish a military presence in Ukraine. If the US aligns its economic and security interests with these efforts, we may see a more stable Ukraine and a failed Russian attempt at occupation, regime change, and so-called “denazification and demilitarization.”
Q: Europe is demanding a role in the ceasefire negotiations and intends to appoint an EU special representative to help end the war. However, Trump appears to downplay Europe’s involvement. How do you see Europe’s participation in this process?
A: I do not believe Trump is sidelining Europe. His objective is to position the US as the lead mediator between Russia and Ukraine. Nevertheless, he has discussed Europe’s role with both French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Rather than focusing on selective statements, we should wait to see how Europe, particularly its military forces and defense strategies, integrate into the broader framework. Recent EU initiatives, including increased defense spending and rearmament programs, indicate a more assertive European approach to security.
Q: At the London Summit on March 2, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented a five-point plan for rearming Europe. Is this a response to Trump’s policies, and can Europe establish a new security bloc? As Elon Musk suggested, should America withdraw from NATO and the UN?
A: Europe is indeed experiencing a security awakening. This is evident not just in statements but also in concrete steps such as increased defense budgets and military aid to Ukraine. While Trump’s policies may have accelerated this shift, it would have been preferable to achieve these goals without such confrontational rhetoric. The EU’s decision to allocate 800 billion euros for defense following the March 6 summit marks a fundamental change in Europe’s approach to security.
Q: Trump claims he alone can bring Putin to the negotiating table. Do you believe he has this leverage, or is Putin trying to manipulate Trump?
A: If anyone can currently bring Putin to the negotiating table, it is Trump. However, the effectiveness of Trump’s strategy – first pressuring Zelenskyy and then engaging with Putin – remains to be seen. If Putin refuses to make concessions, Trump may have to shift tactics and apply pressure on Russia as well. There is also speculation that Trump seeks to turn a weakened Russia toward the West as a counterbalance against China. The true nature of his strategy will become clear once the details of any agreement emerge.
Q: The Kremlin has incorporated four Ukrainian regions into the Russian constitution. If a ceasefire is reached, will Ukraine be forced to cede these territories? Wouldn’t that amount to capitulation?
A: It is too early to predict what concessions, if any, Russia might make. One thing is certain: Ukraine will not accept capitulation. It remains strong and relies on European support. If Russia refuses to compromise, it indicates a desire to prolong the war. This could become a significant challenge for Trump, as his foreign policy platform centers on ending the conflict. Should Moscow refuse to negotiate, Trump will face serious political consequences for failing to deliver on his promises.
By Elza Paposhvili
