Zelensky - bowed, but not beaten

In the end President Zelensky of Ukraine was able to put together a carefully worded statement that seems to have gone some way towards mollifying a crazed Trump administration that seemed to smell blood after the showdown in the White House on Friday.

https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/1896948147085049916?s=61&t=wYv4c8R2e5qI1ZTyZPsQiw

Remarkable really that senior US government officials and GOP politicians were actually calling for the resignation of Zelensky - the same Zelensky who has proven to be a hero in his country, and Europe’s defence, against Russian aggression. Zelensky was democratically elected in a free and fair election, unlike Putin who has killed political opponents, excluded rivals from running in elections, and gerrymandered his re-election numerous times. Zelensky is the democrat, and Putin the dictator, albeit events over the past week seemed to have confirmed that many GOP/MAGA politicians perhaps need to take a 101 course in democracy.

The statement from Zelensky still fell short of the grovelling apology that Vance et al seemed to be demanding but does appear to have been enough to rekindle US interest in the Ukraine minerals deal. WH officials have been suggesting over the past few hours that this deal could be signed this week.

How should we read Zelensky’s statement and the US reaction?

Well, on Zelensky, needs must, and the US decision to freeze miitary supplies to Ukraine probably encouraged Zelensky to put his own pride to the side and to make an effort to calm tensions and rebuild relations.

But important here that Zelensky did not roll over, and the statement does not admit specific fault on the part of the Ukrainian side for events in the WH - just regret as to how events transpired. Zelensky retained his self respect, and beyond that looking thru the events on Friday and since, I think Zelensky has again shown to the world Ukrainians bravery at standing up to bullies.

Likely European allies helped craft the Ukrainian response, as they too recognise that Europe is not in the best of positions vis a vis the Russian threat and given the real risk that the U.S. steps back from its NATO obligations. And while the past week has been cathartic I think for Europe in realising its own defence and security vulnerabilities and that I think finally there is a willingness to address these - as seen in the €500 billion German defence investment programme announced this week - the reality is that it will take time for Europe to fill the gap left by the departure of the U.S. And therein Europe needs short term solutions - it needs Ukraine to continue to hold the line against Russia, and it needs the US to agree to continue to sell arms to Europe and Ukraine so that they can stop Russia. Neither of these latter two requirements for Europe are a given.

The Trump team though also appeared to have blinked, understanding perhaps that they cannot assume that Ukraine will take any peace deal rammed down their throats by Russia and the U.S. And if Trump is going to get his shiny ceasefire deal, he has to engage with the Ukrainians and the Europeans. Ukraine has leverage, or agency, they can walk away and decide to fight on - as I think Zelensky’s fighting spirit in the White House showed.

I think what we saw in the White House from Zelensky et al, is that they are not willing to take a deal at any cost. There are red lines for Ukraine, and central therein is security guarantees.

Now Trump has openly admitted that there is no appetite in the US to give Ukraine, and even perhaps Europe now, direct security guarantees. The US is not prepared to go to war with Russia, over Ukraine. Hence the US veto now also on Ukrainian NATO membership. Trump likes the idea though of a mineral resource deal - another big shiny deal/win for Trump to go back to his MAGA supporters to suggest he is getting something in return for past US support - not the $350bn (an outright lie by Trump) but nearer to $115bn. But he has baulked at extending any formal security guarantee as part of that deal for Ukraine. Rather he has been trying to argue that the mere presence of US companies in Ukraine, as part of the mineral deal, is enough of a security guarantee for Ukraine. The angle is that Russia would not risk invading again, and hurting US economic interests in Ukraine, as set out in the new minerals deal. The problem for Ukrainians are numerous:

First, Russia annexed, invaded, and attacked Ukraine as far back as 2014, and including during the first Trump presidency, while US businesses were operating in Ukraine. Some of those businesses suffered direct damage as a result of Russian attacks. So there is no evidence that Russia has respected US economic interests in Ukraine in the past - and pulled punches against Ukraine for fear of risking war with the U.S. Why would Ukraine trust Trump and Putin now that things will be different?

Second, Russia has had a long track record of breaking prior creasefires agreed in the context of the Minsk process, but even under the Trump presidency. Putin has not respected Trump in the past, why would he do so now?

Third, Ukraine has a long memory of Western security assurances, which turned out not to be worth the paper they were writtten on - the biggest sellout there in the past of Ukraine was the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 for which Ukraine stupidly (with hindsight) gave up its nuclear weapons Arsenal. So with that track record you can excuse the Ukrainians for not trusting great powers, like the US, France, Russia, the UK, and China. Ukraine will want to read all the fine print of any agreement and be absolutely assured that their security is being absolutely respected going forward, before they agree any peace deal. Their agency is in holding out against a bad deal.

So Ukraine seems to have agreed to sign the minerals deal, and go along with Trump’s peacemaking plans, but they are not going to accept anything the Russia and the U.S. try and impose on them. Important there that if Ukraine is going to be pushed to de facto accept the loss of any territory to Russia, there is zero chance that this would be accepted without cast iron assurances that the territory remainng under control by Kyiv is secure. At the minimum I would think that will require a cast iron commitment that the U.S., West will continue to supply arms to Ukraine so it is able to defend itself. NATO membership and bilateral security guarantees are nice (but unlikely) to haves but in the end the best assurance of Ukraine’s security is its own armed forces having the tools to defend the country. Russia, of course, will demand demilitarisation of Ukraine - specific limits in Ukraine’s military capability, not that Ukraine is a threat to Russia but obviously as Russia wants to invade Ukraine again in the future. I think there is zero chance that Ukraine will accept any deal where limits are imposed on its future military capability - unless that is others, like NATO, provide the direct security guarantee.

Others probably think that Zelensky’s statement rowing back from the WH fight make peace talks more likely - perhaps more likely, but certainly not easier. There are still huge differences between the Russian and Ukrainian positions, and even between the US and Europe. Trump wants any deal, any quick win, and does not care about the detail. Europe, and Ukraine, understands any deal has to be sustainable - meaning the option of Russia attacking again has to be taken away. Ukraine needs this for its very survival. Europe needs Ukraine to hold the line until it can get its own defence in order to counter the existential threat it faces from Russia.

Note in terms of Zelensky’s own negotiating position, events in the White House seems to have bolstered his domestic support - and this gives him more agency in talks, as he can hold out for longer knowing that the population at home are behind him.