The World Watches Trump 2.0
Is the U.S. Under Trump Ukraine’s Ally, Mediator, or Opponent?

Since the early stages of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has claimed that if he had been president at the time, the war in Ukraine would never have started. He also asserted that he could resolve the conflict within '24 hours.' Although he stopped mentioning this timeframe after his election, Trump continued to promote the idea of a quick deal to end the war – one that observers expected would require concessions from both sides, possibly including territorial, financial, military, and even cultural compromises.

In Ukraine and among his supporters there – both decision-makers and ordinary citizens – many questions arose. How hard would Trump push for his deal, and what risks was he willing to take? Moving too aggressively could lead to either a failed attempt or an unsustainable peace. Would he sideline Europe and abandon Ukraine, violating the unwritten rule of 'nothing on Ukraine without Ukraine'?

Experts also questioned whether Trump was underestimating the complexity of the conflict and overestimating both sides' willingness – aggressor and victim alike – to end a three-year war. One side is fighting for its sovereignty and survival, while the other seems to feel little internal or external pressure to end its war of aggression, despite heavy losses and only marginal territorial gains after the initial phase of the conflict.

Given Trump's positive comments on Vladimir Putin, his open sympathy for strong, authoritarian leaders, and his personal issues with Volodymyr Zelenskyy dating back to the 2019 coercion attempt that led to his impeachment, would he favour the aggressor over the victim? As things stand, the answer to all these questions seems to be a likely yes – or perhaps even a simple yes.

Ukraine’s Stance on a Peace Deal: A Long Road to Concessions

Since the start of Russia's illegal invasion in February 2022, Ukraine, as the victim, had been strongly opposed to any concessions. However, it soon became clear to any close observer that the key interest for Ukraine was securing guarantees that Russia would not attack again – this was the conditio sine qua non for any peace agreement. Ukrainians had learned from experience that the Minsk agreements, following Russia's occupation of Crimea and the invasion of Donbas in 2014, had failed to halt Putin's expansionist policies.

Based on Trump's public discourse and his character as a businessman and dealmaker, the Zelenskyy government quickly anticipated that he would be unwilling to provide security guarantees. Any effort to change his mind, they believed, would require strong financial incentives – a mutually beneficial economic deal for both sides. As a result, the Ukrainian government, drawing from public statements by Senator Lindsey Graham, promoted the idea of a 'minerals deal' in exchange for hard security guarantees, ideally NATO membership, as the most effective and cost-efficient way to protect Ukraine. This proposal was part of Zelenskyy's 'Victory Plan,' which he personally presented to Trump in the early stages of the 2024 presidential campaign in September.

Public opinion in Ukraine shifted from a strong majority opposing any concessions during the first two years of the war to a more pragmatic stance in 2024, favoring the idea of freezing the conflict. However, a strong conviction remains among the Ukrainian people that a capable army is essential, Ukrainian territory should not be ceded de jure to Russia, and that Putin cannot be trusted (SunFlowerSociology survey, 02/2025).

On the other hand, while trust in President Zelenskyy has slightly declined, it remains high (KIIS, survey 02/2025). His approval rating fell from a very high 77% in December 2023 to 52% in December 2024. However, in the latest poll, it rose to 57%, still higher than before the full-scale invasion (37%). Zelenskyy’s approval is also higher than that of most European leaders and U.S. President Trump.

Trump's Policy on Ukraine: A Key Element of a Fundamental Policy Shift?

The speech delivered by U.S. Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference in mid-February 2025 caused consternation among European and Ukrainian participants. It highlighted the deep rift created by the Trump administration. Notably, Vance did not even address Russia's war against Ukraine, treating it as if it were merely a footnote – either not worth mentioning or a private issue to be resolved between two superpowers.

In his first official reaction to Trump's proposal to end the war through direct talks with Russia, Zelensky stated that Ukraine needs the U.S. 'not as a mediator, but as a supporter.' The first draft of the minerals deal, however, caused alarm in Ukraine. The initial proposal demanded rare earths and other minerals worth an astonishing USD 500 billion for the military aid and financial support already delivered. This was perceived by the Ukrainian public as both a bargaining chip and a plunder, a colonial-style agreement. It would have ensured that the U.S., alongside Russia, emerged as the financial victor from the conflict, to Ukraine's detriment.

In a social media post on X, prominent Ukrainian journalist and military expert Illia Ponomarenko offers his perspective on the events, reflecting the disappointment felt by many Ukrainians:

"I think it's the first case in human history where a nation fighting for its survival against a major aggressor is being forced—by a non-combatant partner—into paying Versailles-style reparations over military aid that had earlier been provided purposefully at no cost due to the aggressor's extreme threat to international security.“

The events were preceded by what was considered an unprecedented campaign against Ukraine and President Zelenskyy, aimed at increasing pressure on the Ukrainian government by adopting the Kremlin's main narratives and talking points. These included Trump's verifiably false claims that Ukraine started the war, that President Zelenskyy had only a 4% approval rating, that he was a 'dictator without elections,' and that new presidential elections had to be held even during wartime. Trump also repeatedly claimed that the U.S. government had invested USD 350 billion in support, while Europe had invested a significantly lower amount, much of which was in the form of loans. The problem: None of this was true.

Zelenskyy's Visit to Washington: Security Guaranties Pending

Zelenskyy's recent trip to Washington and the press conference in the Oval Office highlighted the differences and conflicts in front of the cameras. International observers wondered whether it was simply a discussion that got out of hand or a pre-planned 'ambush.' Most Ukrainians believed it was the latter, aimed at weakening Zelenskyy's position and ultimately getting him out of the way. Trump, Vance, and Graham called for Zelenskyy to resign if he was unwilling to continue, sparking outrage in Ukraine and boosting his approval rating from by 5 percentage points, reflecting Ukrainians' strong support for their president in this situation. 

As a result, the visit was suspended, and no agreement was reached on signing the minerals deal. The new deal envisaging an investment fund for Ukraine was more reasonable offering co-ownership and and no claims on past aid, but it still did not address the main demand – security guarantees as there is a persistant lack of trust in Putin. 66% of Ukrainians are convinced that Russia’s goal in the war is the complete occupation of Ukraine, the destruction of its statehood or the physical genocide of Ukrainian people (KIIS, survey 02-03/2025). In this context, it is important to note that Russia has not yet offered any confidence-building measures or demonstrated any willingness to make concessions. 

The significance of these events and developments cannot be overstated. The actions and statements of the U.S. administration are having a considerable impact in Ukraine and beyond, fostering the perception that its underlying objectives extend beyond resolving the Russian war in Ukraine. This could potentially lead to the formation of a U.S.-Russian alliance based on mutual economic and security interests, sidelining Europe and overlooking Ukraine's key demands for justice, reparations, and guarantees against recurrence.

In the wake of President Trump's recent two decisions to temporarily cease all military and financial aid to Ukraine, as well as intelligence cooperation – funded by the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians – and to side with Russia, Belearus and North Corea in votes at the United Nations opposing a resolution condemning Moscow's actions and supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity there is a growing consensus that Ukraine has temporarily lost its most significant ally to a self-proclaimed mediator now acting like an opponent.

About the Author 

Benjamin Bobbe, Head of Division for Central and Eastern Europe