OPINION: Zelensky to Trump: Just Say No!

President Trump deserves considerable credit for his efforts to end the conflict and find compromise in the context of Ukraine’s survival. As Golda Meir once said, “To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be, or you don’t be.”

President Biden understood this and recognized Ukraine’s historical concerns about agreements among great powers that would come at a high cost to Ukraine. He, therefore, coined the statement, “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”

For Trump, who has expressed doubts about Ukraine’s viability, Ukraine may be an annoying bump on the road toward a Nobel Peace Prize or a “partnership” with Russia. But for President Zelensky, Putin’s war on Ukraine is nothing less than “to be or don’t be” of his nation. Although Zelensky stated that he would accept Trump’s “leadership,” it should be evident that the survival of a country cannot be outsourced.

Trump has acknowledged his frequent communications with Putin during the months leading up to his inauguration. Both he and some of his spokespersons have commented (even if casually) on terms that Ukraine would have difficulty accepting as part of a peace deal and – at other times – floated “trial balloons” to gauge reaction to additional Russian demands. Furthermore, Trump vilified Zelensky and misinformed the public about Zelensky’s popularity (68%, not 4%), as well as labeled his leadership style as dictatorial. This, combined with his baffling assertion that Ukraine provoked Russia’s invasion, has cast doubt on Trump’s role as an “impartial” mediator.

Other Topics of Interest

Russia Holds Black Sea Security Deal Hostage – Demands Sanctions Relief

Meanwhile, a White House statement confirms that the US has pledged to assist Russia with agricultural exports.

Ukraine risks losing control of its security and future and may have to reconsider its relations with the Trump administration. Trump’s heretofore treatment of Ukraine as an object, not a subject, is troubling. Moreover, the US president ignores Europe’s right to participate in negotiations and lies about the fact that Europe has supported Ukraine no less than the US.

Neither Putin nor Trump should arbitrarily decide with whom and when to negotiate. Ukraine’s optimal time for negotiating a cease-fire may differ from Trump’s schedule. Experienced negotiators emphasize the importance of timing in negotiating from a position of strength.

Putin’s economy is a basket case; his military is hurting badly, and popular discontent in Russia is growing. On the other side of the Atlantic, a majority of Americans support Ukraine’s reclaiming of its territory, and an even larger and growing majority disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war. Yet the two presidents – Trump and Putin – conduct themselves as if this were a game of thrones.

Ever since the invasion of Crimea in 2014, the elephant in the room in the guise of the Budapest Memorandum has also been noted. Notwithstanding the various interpretations of the binding nature of this executive agreement, all commentators agree on Russia’s violation of its obligations and the moral obligation of the signatory states to respond.  

The memorandum is of unlimited duration and establishes a baseline remedy. The baseline is simply the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, restitution, and the right of all the signatory states to intervene. The signatories are the leaders of Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia. Even France endorsed the agreement in a separate document.

Although the signatory states may deny that the Budapest Memorandum is legally binding, they cannot escape their moral responsibility while the world is taking notes. Agreements are meaningless if not enforced.

Putin prefers to negotiate only with Trump, but Trump, Zelensky, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer should call him out for “consultation” in compliance with the Budapest Memorandum. Putin grossly violated Russia’s “assurances” to Ukraine and should not get to choose his counterparties, nor should his demands carry much weight. Any US recognition of the legitimacy of Russian annexations would subvert and violate the very “assurances” that the US provided.

While Putin deliberates, Trump can significantly aid Putin in making the right decision by increasing sanctions on Russia, expediting the delivery of military supplies and services that Congress has authorized and paid for, and refraining from making concessions on Ukraine’s behalf. In short, he should act in tandem with the two other co-signatories.

No one wants the war to end more than Ukrainians. But that’s not the point. The point is the terms by which it will end. Will it end in a way that the thug returns the stolen loot and 20,000-plus kidnapped children, pays for the killing and damage and sends his armies home? Or will it end by rewarding the thug with additional stolen loot and abducted children and giving him free rein to ravage the land and its four million people in occupied territories? Will peace last in the long run or only until Russia recovers? In other words, will it end with honor, decency, and self-respect or with disgrace and self-loathing?

Absent a commitment from Trump to provide security guarantees and hold Russia accountable for violating the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine and Europe’s only recourse is to adopt the role that US presidents have long urged Europe assume: to take the lead in its own defense. After nearly seven decades of reliance on the US, Europe must face the inevitability of full or partial American disengagement. Hopefully, the US will remain engaged throughout Trump’s term before transferring its security burdens to Europe.

Between now and then, Europe must recognize that it is woefully unprepared to face Putin’s Russia and use that time to prepare. Ukraine’s experience and combat readiness are Europe’s deterrence because Putin will not attack a NATO country, while Ukraine threatens his armies from the rear. Conversely, if Ukraine should be subdued, weaponized, and added to Putin’s forces, Europe will not prevail.

In short, Ukraine and Europe must forge more than a partnership – a fellowship – in “ be or don’t be.” Time is of the essence. Europe’s two highest priorities must be: (first) to provide Ukraine with all it needs to protect its people and gain firepower superiority over Putin’s troops and mercenaries, and (second) to establish and activate an organization capable of stimulating and coordinating the build-up of Europe’s defense industrial complex, development of advanced weapons, and the trained and equipped manpower needed to prevail in a major land war.

Now may be the time for Ukraine and Europe to take the lead in resolving the threat to their security by participating in all stages of the ceasefire and negotiations. Those consultations must include the signatory states of the Budapest Memorandum, and the parties must be united in their insistence that Russia comply with its obligations under the agreement. Most importantly, Ukraine’s president must speak softly but carry a “big stick” by just saying “No!

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.