In the past few weeks, Americans have shown that they don’t want the same thing as Ukraine and Europe. “Zelensky – a dictator with minimal public support”: these words, spoken by President Trump a few weeks ago, made the world hold its breath.
The last few weeks have been full of twists and turns, with uncertainty surrounding the future of US support for Ukraine and the prospect of an American-Russian reset. Statements from members of the MAGA administration only intensify the tension.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
It’s hard not to be surprised – many of them sound as if they were written by Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman. But what is all this really about?
American modus operandi
Everything the Americans say publicly is aimed at creating chaos, only to later manage it. In practice, this amounts to flooding the media space with a mass of mutually contradictory and controversial statements. The media and commentators then latch onto these “garbage” statements and focus on each of these outbursts individually, leading the public into moral panic.
We observe this not only when the subject is Ukraine, but also regarding Canada as the 51st state, attempts to expand territory to include Greenland, and more.
Public statements by politicians should not be seen as elements of negotiation, as JD Vance mentioned during the first meeting of Trump’s cabinet. The Vice President clearly pointed out that they do not negotiate through the media but in discussions with the leaders of Ukraine and Russia. This strategy causes confusion among international partners and the parties in the conflict. It serves as a message for their own voters and feeds the media and commentators, who typically focus their attention on individual statements.
Eurotopics: Trump Slashes Funding for US International Media
The problem is that such a strategy does not necessarily mean a concrete plan – it may involve actions according to the described modus operandi with a parallel expectation for goals to crystalize over time. As time goes on, it seems that if such a plan exists, it may be at least concerning.
Whose side is the United States on?
The modus operandi of Washington, described above, was clearly visible at the beginning of Ukrainian-American talks.
Let’s rewind to Feb. 12, when Volodymyr Zelensky met with Scott Bassett, the US Secretary of the Treasury, in Kyiv. It was then that the Ukrainian president rejected the American proposal for a deal related to minerals. The situation was accompanied by a scandal, as this was the moment when the President of the United States called Zelensky a dictator with minimal support.
The course of events followed like a rollercoaster. Soon after, renegotiation of the agreement took place, and on Feb. 27, during a meeting with Keir Starmer, Donald Trump renounced the words he had spoken about the head of Ukraine. The next day, before Volodymyr Zelensky was to sign the renegotiated agreement in Washington, it ended with a public quarrel in the Oval Office.
The media couldn’t keep up, and the world sank into moral panic.
In early March, the US stopped providing military aid to Ukraine, followed by withholding intelligence data. A few days later, following successful Ukrainian-American talks in Saudi Arabia, the flow was restored.
I may sound schizophrenic, but this is because Biden has accustomed us to the idea that he is firmly on Ukraine’s side. Contrary to public expectations, the American administration showed that it is a third actor, and its goals don’t necessarily align with those pursued by its predecessors.
Can we imagine continuing to support Ukraine and securing its interests while simultaneously moving toward a reset with Russia? Paradoxically, yes, even though Steve Witkoff in Moscow hit a wall. However, nothing is certain. “I’m not aligned with Putin. I’m not aligned with anybody. I’m aligned with the United States of America,” Trump stated, and this could be taken as the truth. Of course, it’s still important to consider how he defines this interest.
So whose side is America on? Its own, which, unfortunately, according to the current administration, doesn’t necessarily align with Ukraine’s interests. It may also turn out that the United States could end up making a bad deal.
Reset with Russia?
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted on its website excerpts from an interview with Sergey Lavrov for Krasnaya Zvezda, in which he said that Russia is primarily focused on improving relations with the United States. American statements also suggest this. This is not the first attempt at reconciliation – similar efforts were made under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The outcome of those efforts is known to all of us. However, it is clear that for the past several years, Russia has been consistently working to reshape the security architecture in Europe.
Many commentators referred to the meeting between Marco Rubio and Sergey Lavrov in Saudi Arabia as negotiations. This is definitely an overstatement. It could be interpreted as mutual “sniffing around.” The meeting discussed raising the level of diplomatic relations and issues in the Middle East.
Russian propaganda and Kremlin spin doctors became enthusiastic. It was easy to find headlines or statements suggesting that the leaders of the US and Russia are natural allies with similar views.
Another meeting between Americans and Russians took place on Feb. 27 in Istanbul. It lasted six hours, and according to the US State Department’s statement, it was focused solely on rebuilding diplomatic relations with Russia. The topic of Ukraine was not supposed to be discussed.
Increasingly, media speculation is emerging about a possible plan for a so-called “reverse Nixon maneuver” aimed at detaching Russia from China, as Marco Rubio mentioned to Breitbart. Let’s look at how Henry Kissinger spoke about this in his book “Diplomacy,” in the context of Roosevelt’s policy just before the Cold War:
“The belief that the ruler of the Kremlin is, at heart, a man of peace and moderation, who needs help in dealing with his intransigent colleagues, has remained a constant element of American policy, regardless of who the Soviet leader was. And in reality, this position survived communism, entered the post-communist era, and initially applied to Mikhail Gorbachev, and later to Boris Yeltsin.”
Perhaps we are witnessing a situation in which the United States is trying to approach Russia, share spheres of influence, and start a so-called “concert of powers.”
A separate question is how predictable and reliable a partner Russia is. The past practice raises doubts. Last week Witkoff did not meet with enthusiasm in Moscow over a ceasefire.
For Trump, the fate of Eastern Ukraine may already be sealed: “Well, [Ukraine] may not survive anyway,” the president replied on Fox News March 9 when asked if he felt comfortable with the idea that the country might not survive. Unfortunately, this could be interpreted as tacit approval by the American president for a second partition of Ukraine.
Trump’s personal goal is primarily a swift end to the war. He repeats this in many forms. One obstacle to rapprochement between the US and Russia could be the fact that Putin is playing for time and is not in a hurry for a ceasefire. It is also worth asking whether the Russians themselves trust the Americans. So far, Americans have tried to blame the Ukrainians for the failure of talks. However, the Russians will likely get burned sooner rather than later. The question is at what cost.
The world cannot tolerate a vacuum
If Trump abandons Ukraine, will it be left with only EU support? Not necessarily. We are already witnessing an increase in diplomatic activity from China (though this is a very risky and uncertain direction, but the intensification of relations with Beijing may signal to Washington that there are alternatives).
It’s also important to remember Turkey’s role, where security policy in the Black Sea is of vital interest. Before our eyes, a new order is emerging, and Ukraine will want to have its place in it. It’s also important to note that despite enormous fatigue, Ukraine has not lost. It has maintained its statehood and identity.
Russia, fortunately, is far from achieving its goals, and there is no indication that this will change. The dispute between President Zelensky, Trump, and JD Vance, contrary to many opinions, also has beneficial effects.
One might think that Trump is behaving like a spoiled child in a toy store. The media chaos and the huge number of contradictory statements coming from the MAGA establishment make it difficult to assess the situation. But let’s return to JD Vance’s words: negotiations are not conducted through the media. We don’t hear what is happening behind closed doors. However, we see that, for now, Ukraine is not being left to fend for itself, and a breakthrough in US-Russian relations is entirely possible. Can we imagine Elon Musk on a business trip to Moscow? Yes.
However, it is important to remember that the ongoing negotiations are just mutual “sniffing around,” preparing the ground, and testing each other. These are not peace talks yet. Everything can change, and it can change many times.
For the media and experts, there is nothing else to do but be patient, observe, and connect the dots. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that Trump will be a second Reagan when it comes to Russia.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
