Trump's return may spell the end for Zelensky’s war effort, regime, and political career
Recognizing the need to negotiate with Russia, Ukraine and its Western allies are beginning to come to terms with a reality that is far from celebratory. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
Ukraine and its Western allies are gradually coming to terms with the necessity of negotiating a deal with Russia, a realization that arrives belatedly.
The challenge facing Western and Ukrainian leaders is how to manage the situation after inflicting significant damage. With the recent political developments in the United States, particularly the resurgence of former president Donald Trump, there’s a strong possibility that he will fulfill his campaign promise to swiftly conclude the proxy war involving Ukraine.
This prospect may bring relief to many Ukrainians and Russians, as ending the conflict could prevent further unnecessary casualties in a war that has largely favored Russia. However, for Western and Ukrainian leaders, the reality is more complex. As Russia gains the upper hand on the battlefield, achieving peace at this juncture will necessitate substantial concessions from Ukraine and its Western supporters—far beyond the terms previously offered in spring 2022, which Western powers had urged Kyiv to reject. Ultimately, this would involve Ukraine ceding additional territory outside of Crimea and relinquishing its NATO aspirations.
Russia has made its stance abundantly clear: neither Ukraine nor the West will enjoy a favorable settlement without acknowledging the realities of failure and success, respectively. If the situation were reversed and the West had achieved victory, Russia would not have received leniency in the face of defeat. It’s plausible that, at the end of the day, Russia may adopt a more pragmatic approach than the West would have under similar circumstances.
Germany's chancellor, Olaf Scholz, recently learned this hard truth during a conversation with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Scholz's outreach resulted in a firm reiteration of Russia’s narrative concerning the conflict and its openness to negotiations, conditioned upon acknowledging Russia’s national security interests and the "new territorial realities." Simply put, Russia’s minimum demands include acknowledgment of territorial losses, full neutrality for Ukraine, and the exclusion of NATO.
This framework represents the bare minimum Moscow will insist upon; failure to meet these demands could lead to a more unfavorable outcome for Ukraine and the West. Moreover, Russia is not inclined to allow the new U.S. administration to position itself as a neutral mediator. Moscow anticipates that Trump’s administration will rectify the "criminal mistakes" made by President Biden’s administration, according to Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The message is clear: no more free passes, and no superficial grandstanding.
However, not all Western leaders have reached this point of acceptance. Figures like former NATO chief and current Ukraine supporter Anders Fogh Rasmussen remain in denial, hoping for unpredictability from Trump that may lead to deeper involvement in the conflict. In The Economist, former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmitry Kuleba offers a blend of optimistic fantasies and warnings that Trump cannot "throw Ukraine under the bus." Yet, such aspirations seem far-fetched, given Trump's known inclination to prioritize American interests possibly at Ukraine's expense.
Nonetheless, Kuleba appears to be an exception. The Wall Street Journal has observed an increasing acceptance among Ukraine's European allies of Trump's push for peace, alarmed that "time isn’t on Ukraine’s side in the war." The reality is that time has never favored Ukraine, alongside factors like demographics and military capabilities.
A new realism is taking hold among traditional skeptics within EU-NATO Europe. Leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orban and foreign minister Peter Szijjarto have voiced opposition to the proxy war, emphasizing its detrimental economic consequences. Scholz's call to Putin marked a significant shift, suggesting a recognition that the situation demands an exit strategy from the proxy war.
This acknowledgment has not escaped Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who criticized Scholz, calling his outreach an opening of “Pandora’s Box.” Indeed, one concern overshadowing Zelensky is the issue of political reputation invested in the proxy war.
The implications of Trump's return are palpable across the West and Ukraine, even before he articulates concrete plans for peace. Recent discussions surrounding unrealistic proposals, such as establishing a buffer zone in Ukraine, will likely be met with resistance from Moscow, which has no intention of compromising its strategic interests.
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz's aggressive stance regarding economic coercion of Russia, characterizing it simplistically, showcases a lack of understanding that could lead to disillusionment upon direct engagement with Russian counterparts.
In a recent radio interview, Zelensky hinted at the likelihood of the war ending more swiftly under the incoming president, acknowledged slow progress in forming new military brigades, and lamented that less than half of the promised U.S. military aid had materialized. He emphasized that human life should take precedence over territorial concerns, an acknowledgment of the battlefield pressures Ukrainian soldiers face.
Zelensky’s comments, while attempting to maintain a positive narrative, appear to reflect deeper realities. The Ukrainian leadership clings to the notion of reclaiming its 1991 borders, but indications suggest a shifting stance focused on securing durable security guarantees rather than strictly territorial claims.
Zelensky is eager for a dialogue with Trump, hoping to negotiate a peace framework while projecting strength. However, Trump is known to be adept at detecting weakness, and there are clear vulnerabilities in Zelensky's position, especially as he mentions that European nations have aided Ukraine just as much as the U.S., possibly hinting at a path to reduced reliance on American support. Yet, Trump is unlikely to deter from exploiting European dependence.
Moreover, Zelensky’s dilemmas go beyond the war; he is facing significant domestic pressures. Rumors of a potential power struggle with General Valery Zaluzhny, among others, are surfacing as morale wanes in Ukraine. Speculation exists about the timing of presidential elections, where internal polling suggests that Zelensky’s position is precarious.
Even if Trump refrains from appointing a controversial envoy to oversee negotiations, the trajectory appears grim for Kyiv. Not only could Trump facilitate an end to the conflict, but he might also catalyze the unraveling of Zelensky's political future or the regime itself amidst the fallout of proxy wars rooted in quasi-authoritarianism.
As the war draws to a close, Europe’s elites may face dire consequences, facing the consequences of their own misguided ambitions. The extensive damage inflicted may leave lasting scars that could resonate for years to come.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
The challenge facing Western and Ukrainian leaders is how to manage the situation after inflicting significant damage. With the recent political developments in the United States, particularly the resurgence of former president Donald Trump, there’s a strong possibility that he will fulfill his campaign promise to swiftly conclude the proxy war involving Ukraine.
This prospect may bring relief to many Ukrainians and Russians, as ending the conflict could prevent further unnecessary casualties in a war that has largely favored Russia. However, for Western and Ukrainian leaders, the reality is more complex. As Russia gains the upper hand on the battlefield, achieving peace at this juncture will necessitate substantial concessions from Ukraine and its Western supporters—far beyond the terms previously offered in spring 2022, which Western powers had urged Kyiv to reject. Ultimately, this would involve Ukraine ceding additional territory outside of Crimea and relinquishing its NATO aspirations.
Russia has made its stance abundantly clear: neither Ukraine nor the West will enjoy a favorable settlement without acknowledging the realities of failure and success, respectively. If the situation were reversed and the West had achieved victory, Russia would not have received leniency in the face of defeat. It’s plausible that, at the end of the day, Russia may adopt a more pragmatic approach than the West would have under similar circumstances.
Germany's chancellor, Olaf Scholz, recently learned this hard truth during a conversation with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Scholz's outreach resulted in a firm reiteration of Russia’s narrative concerning the conflict and its openness to negotiations, conditioned upon acknowledging Russia’s national security interests and the "new territorial realities." Simply put, Russia’s minimum demands include acknowledgment of territorial losses, full neutrality for Ukraine, and the exclusion of NATO.
This framework represents the bare minimum Moscow will insist upon; failure to meet these demands could lead to a more unfavorable outcome for Ukraine and the West. Moreover, Russia is not inclined to allow the new U.S. administration to position itself as a neutral mediator. Moscow anticipates that Trump’s administration will rectify the "criminal mistakes" made by President Biden’s administration, according to Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The message is clear: no more free passes, and no superficial grandstanding.
However, not all Western leaders have reached this point of acceptance. Figures like former NATO chief and current Ukraine supporter Anders Fogh Rasmussen remain in denial, hoping for unpredictability from Trump that may lead to deeper involvement in the conflict. In The Economist, former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmitry Kuleba offers a blend of optimistic fantasies and warnings that Trump cannot "throw Ukraine under the bus." Yet, such aspirations seem far-fetched, given Trump's known inclination to prioritize American interests possibly at Ukraine's expense.
Nonetheless, Kuleba appears to be an exception. The Wall Street Journal has observed an increasing acceptance among Ukraine's European allies of Trump's push for peace, alarmed that "time isn’t on Ukraine’s side in the war." The reality is that time has never favored Ukraine, alongside factors like demographics and military capabilities.
A new realism is taking hold among traditional skeptics within EU-NATO Europe. Leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orban and foreign minister Peter Szijjarto have voiced opposition to the proxy war, emphasizing its detrimental economic consequences. Scholz's call to Putin marked a significant shift, suggesting a recognition that the situation demands an exit strategy from the proxy war.
This acknowledgment has not escaped Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who criticized Scholz, calling his outreach an opening of “Pandora’s Box.” Indeed, one concern overshadowing Zelensky is the issue of political reputation invested in the proxy war.
The implications of Trump's return are palpable across the West and Ukraine, even before he articulates concrete plans for peace. Recent discussions surrounding unrealistic proposals, such as establishing a buffer zone in Ukraine, will likely be met with resistance from Moscow, which has no intention of compromising its strategic interests.
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz's aggressive stance regarding economic coercion of Russia, characterizing it simplistically, showcases a lack of understanding that could lead to disillusionment upon direct engagement with Russian counterparts.
In a recent radio interview, Zelensky hinted at the likelihood of the war ending more swiftly under the incoming president, acknowledged slow progress in forming new military brigades, and lamented that less than half of the promised U.S. military aid had materialized. He emphasized that human life should take precedence over territorial concerns, an acknowledgment of the battlefield pressures Ukrainian soldiers face.
Zelensky’s comments, while attempting to maintain a positive narrative, appear to reflect deeper realities. The Ukrainian leadership clings to the notion of reclaiming its 1991 borders, but indications suggest a shifting stance focused on securing durable security guarantees rather than strictly territorial claims.
Zelensky is eager for a dialogue with Trump, hoping to negotiate a peace framework while projecting strength. However, Trump is known to be adept at detecting weakness, and there are clear vulnerabilities in Zelensky's position, especially as he mentions that European nations have aided Ukraine just as much as the U.S., possibly hinting at a path to reduced reliance on American support. Yet, Trump is unlikely to deter from exploiting European dependence.
Moreover, Zelensky’s dilemmas go beyond the war; he is facing significant domestic pressures. Rumors of a potential power struggle with General Valery Zaluzhny, among others, are surfacing as morale wanes in Ukraine. Speculation exists about the timing of presidential elections, where internal polling suggests that Zelensky’s position is precarious.
Even if Trump refrains from appointing a controversial envoy to oversee negotiations, the trajectory appears grim for Kyiv. Not only could Trump facilitate an end to the conflict, but he might also catalyze the unraveling of Zelensky's political future or the regime itself amidst the fallout of proxy wars rooted in quasi-authoritarianism.
As the war draws to a close, Europe’s elites may face dire consequences, facing the consequences of their own misguided ambitions. The extensive damage inflicted may leave lasting scars that could resonate for years to come.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
