Mariia Tsiptsura, Onet: How do you assess the effectiveness of Trump and Zelanski's meeting? Does this tell us about the warming of relations between Ukraine and the USA? And can it turn into support in the future?
Volodymyr Fesenko: We should not treat every meeting as a specific political decision. In the case of European leaders, there is a ritual that after each meeting, joint projects should be announced – a tradition that confirms the partnership. It is different with Trump. It was important to transfer the specific needs of Ukraine to Zelanski to the American president. And he succeeded. We are talking about air defense systems. Trump suggested that this issue would now be considered. It will be a purchase, not free help. This corresponds to Trump. And this is important for Ukraine. But all in all, this means that Zelanski managed to convince Trump in a key issue.
What?
In terms of providing Ukraine, weapons. This is important, first, to support us in a difficult situation. Secondly, it is a signal for Russia that the US will provide weapons with Ukraine if Russia intensifies its attacks. This is a way to influence Putin. In addition, what is important, Trump did not make any promises about the suspension of weapons this time. He said that this issue was not discussed. I think that a difficult situation was discussed in negotiations. And Trump apparently already understands that a quick reach of agreement will not be possible. This is contrary to its traditional style. He certainly doesn't talk about “24 hours” anymore. He understands that this will not be fast and the situation is very complicated. Trump is aware of this. This is his restrained and realistic assessment. He does not promise to suspend the weapon, but only suggests that he will try to talk to Putin.
Can Trump reach a point where Putin will undergo pressure with sanctions?
I think that this will not happen yet. Americans have no solution to end Russia's war with Ukraine. They are in Stupor. But the fact that Zelanski managed to convey our position, our assessment of the situation on the front and negotiations, is already positive. And judging by Trump's statements, he accepted this conversation well. This is also important from the point of view of communication with the American president.
Expert with peak results. “More important than meeting Zelanski with Trump”
What generally think about the results of the peak?
They are even more important in a strategic sense than Zelanski's meeting with Trump. Decision to increase defense expenses to 5 percent. GDP until 2035 is very important, even at such a date. The key is also what has been recorded: this is a response to the threats of security from Russia. This means that Russia has been defined as NATO's strategic opponent. Earlier, all negative references to Russia were blocked by the United States. This is not the case now. In general, the clause about support for Ukraine and the fact that military assistance for Ukraine will be included in the defense expenses of NATO countries is essentially a recognition that Ukraine is part of NATO's defense policy, and support for Ukraine is considered an interest of the alliance security. In fact, we have become part of the alliance. Not de iure, but we are
That's how they perceive. And this is an important step. The fact that it was recorded in a common document that has not been blocked by the Americans is a very positive moment.
Can we talk about a change in Trump's attitude to Putin and his desire to reset American-Russian relations?
NO. Let us not think like a wishful. Trump's attitude changes every day. He will talk to Putin again and call him “a good man” with whom you can negotiate. There will be no fundamental change in the US approach to Russia. They will continue negotiations. Trump will not refuse to communicate with Putin. But it is important that the US becomes more active in the negotiation process. The problem is that they don't know how and what to do. They have no unity in the team in this matter.
“It's good that Trump doesn't abandon the problem”
There was also a Trump statement in which he said that “something had to be done” with Ukraine. How positive are such statements?
The interpretation of what Trump said is a separate species. What's more, I'm not sure if he will be able to explain what he meant tomorrow. But it's good that he understands that there is a problem. And it's good that Trump does not abandon him and leaves Europe, but thinks that this problem must be solved together. But he doesn't know how to solve it. Today it only shows that Americans do not abandon their commitment, but unfortunately they do not know how to solve this situation.
To what extent does the situation in the Middle East affect Trump and his interest in the Ukrainian issue?
If the situation in the Middle East is quickly resolved and a permanent truce occurs, Trump will be prone to bringing peace. He said he solved four conflicts. We don't know which conflicts. But this is not important, it is important that we use its impulses. Secondly, the war between Iran and Israel ended in a truce. And it is important that Ukraine emphasizes that in this way the war with Russia should be ended. And it will be very good if Trump understands it and goes in that direction.
