Prospects for a potential truce in Ukraine prior to Trump-Putin encounter discussed.
In a recent development, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, John Herbst, has expressed concerns about the current approach towards resolving the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Herbst, who served as the U.S. ambassador during the George W. Bush administration and is currently at the Atlantic Council, believes that the current strategy is not a sign of strength.
According to Herbst, the approach appears to front-load Ukrainian concessions without any indication of Russian concessions. This, he suggests, pushes actual peace, a durable peace, farther away because Russian President Vladimir Putin may think he can get his way.
The concerns stem from the potential summit between President Trump and President Putin, which was announced by Trump on Friday. However, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine was not invited to the meeting. This, Herbst believes, marginalizes Ukraine and its European allies, failing to have them "at the table" in negotiations about their future.
Trump had built significant leverage against Russia, including strengthening NATO's hand, getting NATO nations to increase defense expenditments, tying it to the Russian threat, announcing the United States would be willing to sell advanced defensive and offensive weapons to NATO allies to pass on to Ukraine, and tying tariffs on India to India’s purchase of Russian hydrocarbons.
Despite this leverage, Trump has so far hesitated to follow through on these economic threats, instead showing willingness to consider peace terms more favorable to Russia, such as Russia retaining occupied Ukrainian territories in exchange for a Russian promise not to attack again. This, Herbst states, is a problem because it risks undermining Ukraine’s position and security.
Russia, it seems, did not want Zelenskyy to attend the potential summit. The U.S. position, according to public revelations, was that there should be a three-way meeting involving Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump, but Russia said no and the White House acquiesced.
Herbst expresses concern that the public discussion about potential terms involves only Ukrainian concessions, with no indication of Russian concessions. He is particularly worried about the summit's focus on concessions that Russia could get from Ukraine, which could embolden Putin's aggression.
Moreover, Russia continued to bomb Ukrainian cities and attack civilians after Trump's deadline, according to Herbst. This suggests that Putin may believe he can have his way at the potential summit in Alaska.
In summary, the U.S. has significant financial leverage over Russia, which can be used to pressure Putin to consider peace. However, the hesitation or refusal to impose harsher financial penalties and openness to Russia’s demands for territorial concessions reduces U.S. leverage and risks marginalizing Ukraine and European allies. The exclusion of Ukraine from talks and Trump’s apparent sympathy to Putin’s narrative undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and risk European security, while missing an opportunity to use U.S. leverage decisively against Russia’s ongoing aggression.
- War-and-conflicts and politics intersect in the ongoing standoff between Ukraine and Russia, as the strategies applied and potential concessions discussed heavily influence the trajectory of peace and stability in the region.
- General news coverage highlights the concern that the upcoming summit between Trump and Putin might disregard Ukrainian interests, possibly skimping on Ukrainian concessions, and undermining its position vis-à-vis Russia, amid questions about Russian intentions in the conflict.
