Trump is pasting against Zelanski. Kyiv needs “hedgehog strategy”
Both leaders said that the meeting was fruitful, and Zelanski called them potentially “historical”. Meanwhile, Washington also described as a fruitful last week's meeting of Putin with the Messenger of Trump to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff.
However, the frustration of the US president is growing.
Since his office, the office has been falling over Zelanski, blaming him for war, and at the same time behaves much more gently against the much less susceptible to the attacks of Russia, who actually began the conflict. For his part, Witkoff repeats the Kremlin's arguments and in a poetic way tells how Putin prayed for Trump when he learned about the assassination of his life in July last year.
Last week, however, Trump publicly criticized Putin after the most tragic attack of Russia on the capital of Ukraine since last summer. “Vladimir, stop!” – wrote the US president on Truth Social, adding that he is “dissatisfied” from the attack. Then he threatened Russia with sanctions after meeting Zelnski in the Basilica of St. Piotr.
Are this rare reprimand and threat of economic sanctions cause a change in Moscow? Is this why Trump and his advisers think they are closer to the agreement? Or maybe Zelanski is giving way?
US President Donald Trump (L) during a meeting with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelnski at the funeral of Pope Francis at St. Piotr in the Vatican, April 26, 2025.PAP/EPA/Foreign Affair Minister Handout Handout/PAP
A terrible agreement for Ukraine
Regardless, you should maintain healthy skepticism. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergei Lavrov seemed to exacerbate the position of Moscow regarding annexed territories in eastern Ukraine in an interview given last weekend. Earlier, we heard optimistic voices from the Trump administration about the upcoming agreement. Further care is also recommended, because the general contours of the agreement have not actually changed: it still includes Ukraine's failure to come to NATO, the actual renunciation of a significant part of the territory of Russia, recognition by the United States of the Crimean Peninsula and the abolition of sanctions against Russia.
The US position is that in return Ukraine will receive “solid security guarantees” from European countries and other friendly countries acting as guarantors, but the details of this solution are unclear. In addition to deepening energy and economic cooperation between the USA and Russia, Kiev will have to sign a agreement on mineral raw materials, under which half of the income from natural resources will go to the USA, and the nuclear power plant in Zaporozhye – controlled by Kiev, but served by Americans – will have to supply electricity both Ukraine and Russia.
There is no doubt that this is a terrible agreement for Ukraine. Blood overflow can stop, but Kiev will not only come out of this brutal war, but also will not have any reliable guarantees of security, because Washington refuses to support Europeans. There will be no responsibility for Russia's documented war crimes, or, if we know, no clear compensation from Moscow for the damage caused (although the last issue was included in the text [umowy]there is no explanation where the money will come from – or how many of them will be).
It is hard to call the strategy of “Peace through Strength”, which was outlined by the more and more pushed Trump envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg: “We say to Ukrainians:» You have to sit at the table, and if you don't do it, support from the United States will be suspended. Ukrainians everything they need to kill you on the battlefield, “said Kellogg.
However, only half of this plan was implemented. Ukraine is the only page that concesses. What's more, for the first time in the post -war history, European borders will be changed by armed force, which in itself is a bad precedent.
Trump's advisers, however, are right, claiming that it was clear that Ukraine would have to give part of the territory. In this column, it has been argued for two years that Ukraine has no chance of winning the war, and the Western promises were criticized that it would support Ukraine until its 1991 borders were restored.
Continued article under video material
It could have been different, but the West has chilled
There was, of course, the moment when it could have been different – if the West did not hesitate at the beginning of the war. – The Russian troops could be defeated and displaced from Ukraine as early as 2022, if the West from the beginning took a hard position towards Russia, and Ukraine received the necessary amount of weapons – explained the former Russian diplomat Borys Bondalem.
However, when the West decided on fear, the mantra “as long as it needs to” arouse suspicions, as well as frequent assurances that no one should press Ukraine on conversations, because who pays, he requires. The promise of membership in NATO was also stupid because it was clear that Moscow would never allow it.
Too many hope was placed in economic sanctions that were never able to force Russia to obey. In addition, the war for destruction has always been conducive to Russia, especially since there was no chance for Western allies to join the war as a fighting side.
In short, the “nasty contract” was predictable. If for decades you destroy your armed forces and weapon production, you do not set enforceable borders and do not ask difficult questions before making promises, this is what happens.
Prize for Putin
This means that Putin's brutality will be rewarded, and his army will not be responsible for cruel behavior or for unlawful and disgusting deportations from the occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia. In addition, the autocrats axis will be even more determined to destroy the old world order.
What's worse, it also means that Ukraine will be punished, not Russia. Without a guarantee of US security, the agreement on the suspension of weapons will be just as worthless as the famous Budapest Memorandum from 1994, which set the borders of Ukraine and guaranteed its sovereignty in exchange for the resignation of this country from the nuclear arsenal from Soviet times. Putin did not meet Russia's obligations of 1994 and it is unlikely that he will now follow the proposed agreement.
As noted last year, former defense minister Oleksij Reznikow in an interview with Politico: – They can sign documents, but whether they will keep contracts is another matter. Remember the Budapest Memorandum. President of France [Francois] Mitterrand refused to sign … and warned our president [Leonida Kuczmę]: “Young man, they cheat you.” Kuczma told me this story. After 30 years, the Russians did exactly the same – they deceived us. “
Without a guarantee of safety and a definite “hedgehog strategy” [to odniesienie do strategii obrony Tajwanu przed Chinami, który nie miałby szans w bezpośrednim starciu z nimi, więc zamiast tego stawia na dużą liczbę mobilnych “małych systemów” bojowych, mogących zniszczyć cenny sprzęt przeciwnika]which would provide Ukraine with strong armament and even greater danger for those who want to bump with it, also in this case we are dealing with a trick. The agreement probably means the end of Zelanski's presidency and will plunge Ukraine in political chaos, because the transfer of territory will probably require a change in the constitution and a referendum.
Putin will then have a lot of opportunities to use these political divisions, making an agreement only with a stop in his revisionist aspirations to subordinate the country.
