Azernews.Az

Elnur Enveroglu

Read more

On February 28, a much-anticipated meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trump took place at the White House. But it was not the talks themselves that drew the most attention—it was Trump’s sharp criticism of Zelensky that left a lasting impression in front of dozens of media representatives.

“You’ve been at a disadvantage since the war started. You should be grateful,” Trump stated, challenging Zelensky’s position on the ongoing conflict with Russia. "People are dying, your troops are lacking. You’re not in a better position. Right now, you have no cards to play… You are gambling with the lives of millions… You’re gambling with World War III,” Trump added.

Trump's remarks came in response to Zelensky's calls for stronger security guarantees for Ukraine and greater involvement in negotiations with Russia. The Ukrainian president argued that Ukraine needs more than just a ceasefire, pointing to Russia’s repeated violations of past agreements. In the meeting, Trump did not allow Zelensky to speak freely on the matter, accusing him of pushing Ukraine toward World War III with his aggressive approach.

While Trump’s criticisms were harsh, he also promised that, if re-elected, he would secure a better deal for Ukraine, offering assurances of a security guarantee to safeguard Ukraine’s future. However, many commentators view Trump’s actions as part of a broader strategy: to position himself as the only U.S. leader capable of resolving the Ukraine crisis and negotiating a peace deal with Russia.

But a question lingers—what would be the consequences of Trump's more lenient stance toward the Kremlin? Could it lead to a successful resolution, or might it open the door to even more dangerous outcomes in the region?

The Stakes of Historical Diplomacy

Zelensky, determined to make his case, crossed his arms and challenged the U.S. to address its past mistakes in handling Ukraine. He pointed out that Ukraine had failed to take critical steps thirty years ago—steps that could have averted the current crisis. But for Trump, it seems more important to look forward than to dwell on historical errors. The U.S., he implied, was calling on Ukraine to accept a difficult reality: without U.S. support, Ukraine could not win this war.

However, the larger question remains—what are the implications of this proposed shift? Will Ukraine’s potential submission to U.S. pressure embolden Russia further and set a dangerous precedent for Eastern Europe and the surrounding regions?

European allies have expressed support for Ukraine in its struggle but find Trump’s proposals troubling. The idea of the U.S. claiming significant control over Ukraine’s mineral resources in exchange for support is seen by many as a step too far, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty. Trump’s stance—“Without us, you can’t achieve anything”—leaves the Ukrainian leadership in a difficult position, caught between the demands of their Western allies and Trump’s formidable pressure.

This dynamic also highlights a psychological tactic, one Trump previously used with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer when he asked, “Can you take on Russia yourself?” In both cases, Trump positions the U.S. as the indispensable leader in resolving global conflicts, suggesting that only his leadership could offer a real solution.

A Business Deal More Than a Peace Agreement

Trump, who often touts his identity as a businessman, appears to be framing the situation as a negotiation over resources. In his view, forcing Ukraine into a deal with Russia might be a necessary step, even if it means sacrificing Ukraine’s autonomy in the process. For Trump, such a deal could bolster his image as a savvy negotiator, a leader capable of achieving results. However, this approach might deepen divisions within the U.S. and estrange European leaders, raising questions about the long-term stability of a peace agreement negotiated under such terms.

Ukrainian President Zelensky remains adamant that security guarantees must be part of any peace deal. After all, Russia has violated numerous agreements, including the 2014 ceasefire deal following its annexation of Crimea. Without security guarantees, Zelensky argues, a lasting peace is impossible.

Trump, meanwhile, claims credit for “stopping hundreds of wars” and promises that a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin would include a comprehensive security package. But the effectiveness of such guarantees remains uncertain, and for many in Ukraine, Trump’s promises may sound more like a political gambit than a genuine commitment to peace.