What are the chances for Ukraine?

Three years following Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, the U.S. is now actively urging both nations to achieve a ceasefire agreement. However, critics of the Trump administration, along with most European nations, are questioning: At what cost to Ukraine?

Earlier this month, President Trump, who has inaccurately claimed Ukraine initiated the conflict, held a private phone conversation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin covering various subjects, including Ukraine. Additionally, U.S. and Russian officials last week embarked on preliminary talks regarding peace discussions without representation from Ukraine.

The U.S. has proposed an arrangement whereby Ukraine would allocate $500 billion from rare-earth mineral profits to Washington in return for assistance, but lacking a security assurance. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, inaccurately labeled a “dictator” by Trump, has so far declined to endorse the agreement.

On Monday, the Trump administration opposed a United Nations resolution denouncing Russian aggression against Ukraine and demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops. U.S. diplomats presented a resolution solely advocating for the cessation of hostilities. Both proposals were approved.

In this revised dialogue conducted prior to the U.N. vote, Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s senior diplomat from 2020 to 2024 and now a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, articulates his perspectives on the conflict and Ukraine’s outlook.

---

In December, you expressed optimism regarding Ukraine’s situation. What is your sentiment today?

Less optimistic. Personally, and for Ukraine more broadly, we underestimated the influence that Trump and his administration would exert on Ukraine due to his eagerness to finalize a deal swiftly. Based on our past experiences with President Trump during his initial term, we assumed he would adopt a more even-handed approach toward both Ukraine and Russia in these circumstances.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, intend to present a proposal to the White House this week that would station 30,000 European troops in Ukraine for security purposes, with the U.S. merely providing supportive aid, potentially in the form of air and missile defense. If this materializes, would that adequately deter Russia?

Consider the scale of Ukraine. Spread out 30,000 troops over the territory, and it becomes clear that it’s negligible. The frontline in the Russia-Ukraine conflict stretches approximately 3,000 kilometers [around 1,860 miles]. Thirty thousand troops will not be adequate to cover that expanse, which means they cannot function as peacekeepers in the conventional sense because they would be unable to separate the Russian and Ukrainian armies to avert hostilities.

Thus, we should not perceive this concept as a legitimate means of ensuring the withdrawal of forces. It does not offer a security guarantee; it doesn’t even provide a security assurance or a stabilizing contingent. It merely signifies a reassuring presence on the ground. Is the presence of such troops fundamentally a beneficial idea? Yes. Is it a practical solution to halt the conflict? No.

We need to be realistic. Ukraine’s military comprises 1 million personnel. Around 400,000 troops are actively fighting on both sides. Thirty thousand troops, even with air support, can make minimal impact. Furthermore, Russia is likely to vehemently oppose this notion as it could be viewed as legitimizing at least some NATO forces on Ukrainian soil. Therefore, while the idea has merit, I don’t see how it would contribute to concluding the war.

Trump officials are urging Ukraine to consent to relinquish a portion of profits from its rare-earth mineral resources in exchange for financial aid as part of ceasefire negotiations. Zelensky has indicated he will not endorse such an agreement. Does he possess substantial options at this point?

Ukraine’s capacity to maneuver is significantly constrained, to put it mildly. The primary issue here is strictly diplomatic. Russia has numerous gestures it can undertake to appease or engage with Trump and exhibit its constructiveness that are not directly linked to the conflict itself. They released a U.S. citizen, which is, of course, appreciated. This enabled President Trump to project strength and illustrate that a new approach toward Russia yields benefits.

Ukraine lacks that privilege. Everything Ukraine can offer or execute is tied to the conflict. This places Russia and Ukraine in entirely dissimilar positions concerning Trump and his administration. This is the predicament that Zelensky is confronting.

Over two hundred

Drones assaulted Ukraine merely a few days ago. Did we witness any expression of disapproval from the United States? No, we did not. This is the pattern that Putin will persist in following. He will persist in actions that benefit Trump, which do not impede his aggressive advancements against Ukraine, while Zelensky will continue to oppose the inequitable arrangement without presenting an alternative to Trump. This depicts the stalemate that Ukraine finds itself in.

Should or will Zelensky resign if it leads to a satisfactory agreement, as he’s proposed?

We need to be unequivocal: A ceasefire does not mark the conclusion of the conflict. To the credit of the Trump administration, they aim to establish a ceasefire potentially as a prerequisite for concluding the war. However, their focus is solely on this aspect.

In truth, implementing a ceasefire is feasible but extremely challenging. Maintaining it would be nearly impossible, and the end of the conflict is not on the immediate horizon. These are two entirely distinct strategic objectives.

Trump desires a ceasefire as a demonstration of his strength and capability to negotiate the most challenging deal. Putin might consent to that, but his primary objective of overcoming Ukraine will remain intact. The consideration of how to avert that is not where the thoughts of U.S. and Western strategists currently lie — they haven’t extended their thinking that far. If, by the way, the concept of the West is still pertinent at all.

Territory, finances, and Ukraine’s membership in NATO are the crucial topics on the negotiation table. What’s the most favorable outcome Ukraine can anticipate if the U.S. ceases to offer additional support?

Even though I am no longer part of the government, I remain a Ukrainian, and I cannot focus on what concessions Ukraine may need to make because that would merely undermine Ukraine’s position.

If Ukraine could be assured of a possibility to set aside NATO and territorial matters without legally acknowledging that they are off the table, and if Putin were to adhere to that agreement, it could potentially work.

The challenge is that everything we understand about Russia indicates it is unlikely to honor its commitments, and it would utilize any ceasefire or interval to prepare for another attempt to annihilate Ukraine. The crux of the matter is that there is complete distrust in Putin. Trump and his associates demonstrate faith that Putin is trustworthy and that an agreement is achievable, yet all indications about him suggest the contrary.

Would it be prudent for Ukraine to contemplate relinquishing parts of its territory to Russia in exchange for a cessation of hostilities?

Putin’s ambitions remain unchanged. He desires the entirety of Ukraine. He will pose the question to President Trump: Who can assure that four years from now the U.S. stance will not change? There is no assurance that President Trump can provide him. He may be assured that Ukraine will not join NATO, but as long as Ukraine continues to function as an independent state, in Putin’s perception, Ukraine will inevitably be drawn into NATO five or ten years down the line.

This encapsulates the essence of this entire conflict. When engaging with another state, it is fundamentally crucial to comprehend what its ultimate objective is. The dilemma is that Putin is very certain of his end goal, while the West remains unclear.

It is perhaps the simplest task in diplomacy to draw boundaries on someone else’s map and determine another’s fate. We have observed this multiple times throughout human history, including regarding Ukraine. Sadly, delineating these boundaries with a nation that seeks to obliterate another is not a viable solution, as it will not endure. This is the underlying issue: What will ensure the deal persists, if it is ever reached?