Ticking bomb. Expert: Trump will soon be disappointed with Putin. “You bastard”
Deniz Yuecel: Did the meeting of Zelanski and Trump in Washington bring Ukraine closer to peace?
Włodzimierz Jermolenko: The good news is that Ukraine and Europe are very united. This shows that Ukraine is already part of Europe.
I think that the idea of striving not to suspend a weapon, and immediately to conclude a peace treaty is bad. It means that until the conclusion of a lasting peace agreement – and it will be a very complicated process – we will continue to experience bombing, rocket attacks, drones, etc. This idea is also contrary to the alleged goal of Donald Trump, which is stopping death.
The February visit of Zelanski in Washington ended in a fiasco. What atmosphere was this time at the leaders' meeting?
I got the impression that everyone wanted to send a positive signal. Trump needed it, Zelanski needed it – and he succeeded. Let us not be fooled.
A good mood showed by him does not mean that they agree on the content of peace ideas.
Do you trust Europeans more?
Yes, Europe is currently the most important partner of Ukraine. I hope that he understands that this war is directed not only against Ukraine, but also against it. That is why it is good that Finland President Alexander Stubb was present at the meeting in Washington – he knows perfectly well what it means to be a neighbor of Russia. The US is moving away from Europe and this process began a long time ago, Trump is only a symptom. Europe should prepare for greater geopolitical insulation. This raises serious questions about her safety.
At the beginning of the war, former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had a different position than at the end of his term. Was the criticism directed by Ukraine to the federal government in the initial period?
I think Olaf Scholz was completely unprepared for this situation. Of course, he later made efforts and, above all, rejected the idea that Germany would play the role of a mediator between Ukraine and Russia, just as Germany and France tried to do it after the Russian invasion in 2014. Scholz also had to struggle with resistance inside his party, SPD.
Friedrich Merz and Wołodymyr Zelnski in Berlin, 13 August 2025.Getty Images News / Getty Images
How is Friedrich Merz's approach different?
He is more determined. This was visible, among others in his statements in Washington about Donbass. Germany provides Ukraine much more financial assistance than France, which is often underestimated. But for me, the key question is: are Germany, as the central economic power of Europe, ready to accept a more -oriented policy, increase arms production and accelerate the development of military technology? We all know how difficult it is psychologically for the Germans. However, if they do not understand that democracy must also be defended militarily, and building defense and military potential does not mean a return to Nazism, we will have a problem.
And Donald Trump?
He took over some elements of Putin's narrative. He helped him a meeting in Alaska. His policy towards Putin, however, follows a stuffy pattern. I think that soon he will be disappointed again with the Russian president and he will say: “I spread the red carpet and you cheated on me. So you have sanctions, you damn bastard.” Then they will be friends again and then enemies.
Trump comes from the business environment and likes to talk about “contracts”, not only in terms of Ukraine. Should “contracts” be a category of international policy? Or maybe they were always, and Trump only openly talks about it?
Europeans have always emphasized values, but in the background they concluded contracts. However, I believe that in the case of war in Ukraine, the conflict between the idealistic vision of politics, i.e. values and the economic vision, i.e. contracts, is decisive. The third concept is decisive: Tyranian-military, which is represented by Putin. Trump wants a contract. Putin no – he wants all of Ukraine. And this is the big difference. Putin does not think in economic terms, he does not think in terms of winning both sides. Thoughts in terms of military conquests and violence.
Continued article under video material
Does Ukraine have a chance to agree with Russia without giving up territories?
At the moment not. That is why Zelanski says that Ukraine can negotiate, based on the current front line. The Russians, however, are not satisfied with it, and they also want territories currently controlled by Ukraine: Zaporozhye, Chersonia, and Krama. This is one red line that Ukraine cannot exceed in negotiations. The second – Kiev should not close the door to regaining the territories currently occupied by the Russians: Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea. You should not consider their occupation legal. In these two issues, the position of Ukraine and Russia are incompatible.
Several weeks in Ukraine took place Large protests against the Zelanski anti -corruption act – Is it a sign of progressive destabilization or revival of democracy even during the war?
This act was initiated by MPs who have connections with corruption. Zelanski's argument was that anti -corruption bodies did not work well enough. You can discuss how to reform this structure. However, the way the Ukrainian authorities did it, was unacceptable, which is why the protests were justified. They were a good sign. However, we must be careful because Russia wants to destabilize Ukraine from the inside.
Should Ukraine soon conduct presidential elections, as Trump demands?
Of course, if there is a stable truce. Democracy cannot exist for a long time without elections. But how can you organize them now – when drones and rockets fall into Ukrainian towns every day, when a million people serve in the army and millions escaped abroad?
What is the issue of freedom of speech in Ukraine?
I don't see any major problems. We have free media, strong criticism of the government. There are also disturbing signals and people who want to weaken civil society – but they are far from it.
One of Putin's declared goals was the destruction of Ukrainian culture. Did he achieve this?
No, on the contrary – the invasion led to its revival. Interest in Ukrainian literature increased, festivals are organized. Ukrainian culture is flourishing. In the occupied territories, however, it is dead, forbidden.
What role do Ukrainian intellectuals and artists play in this war?
Recently, a French journalist asked me if Ukrainian intellectuals would follow in the footsteps of Sartre and Beauvoir, who represented the idea of ”engaged intellectual”. I replied that they were not, because in the entire history of Ukraine intellectuals were always involved. They fought for their nation, for language and culture. They also do it now – words, ideas, books, but also as volunteers and soldiers on the front. A few days ago, the painter Dawid Cziczkan, an anarchist who volunteered to the army, was buried.
As a philosopher, you dealt with intensively modernism and anti -modernism. Are these key categories to understand the war in Ukraine at an abstract level?
I think that the key concept here is something different: reimperialization. Russia wants to reimperialize the world, i.e. end the decolonization process lasting several centuries. He wants to counteract him because he considers himself the only surviving empire and wants to give an example to others in a sense: this is how the world in which we want to live. Unfortunately, Trump shares this vision of reimperialization of the world, just like China. That is why Europe plays such a key role.
