The first direct contact between the Ukrainian and Russian delegations led to nothing. The top officials did not show up at the meeting place and then awkwardly tried to explain why they did so. Since then, there has been a constant exchange of contradictory statements and chaotic movements both around the Russian-Ukrainian war and far beyond its borders.

Negotiations have begun

Since the 80th anniversary of the anti-Hitler coalition's victory over Nazi Germany, there has been a flurry of activity surrounding the Russian-Ukrainian war. On May 10, a landmark meeting between British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Kyiv showed that Europe (at least the aforementioned states, the “coalition of the willing”) has awakened and intends to act decisively to defend Ukraine and lead US President Donald Trump, who is trying to resist and distance himself from European affairs. Thus, an actual ultimatum was issued to Russian dictator Putin in Kyiv: if he does not announce a 30-day ceasefire “starting Monday,” Europeans, together with the US, will impose severe sanctions against Russia. It seemed that European colleagues had managed to persuade Trump to join them.

However, Putin suddenly made an unexpected proposal: to “meet in Istanbul” with either Trump or the Ukrainian delegation – he was vague on this point. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy picked up on this proposal: “I will come to Turkey and wait for you, Putin, and you will not be able to find a reason to avoid the meeting”... It would seem that the Russian dictator was trapped? Of course! He got out of it in the only way he could: he simply did not come, spitting in the face not only of his Ukrainian opponent, but also of his supposed American friend. Instead, he sent a delegation to Istanbul, headed by... his cultural advisor V. Medinsky, not even a second-tier but a third-tier official, a bitter enemy of Ukraine; it included second and third deputies of the heads of the Russian intelligence services. Medinsky embodied Putin's view of these negotiations: they were supposedly a “continuation” of the negotiations that also took place in Istanbul at the end of April 2022. Medinsky also headed the Russian delegation at that time. At that time, the delegations did not decide anything, nor could they, because the Russian side was imposing capitulation on Ukraine, even though it had suffered a humiliating defeat near Kyiv. The Ukrainian delegation was headed, then as now, by the Minister of Defense (then Reznikov, now Umerov) and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (then Kuleba, now Sybyga), because Ukraine took the negotiations seriously.

So, on May 16 in Istanbul, the Ukrainian and Russian delegations looked each other in the eye for the first time since their only meeting at the beginning of the full-scale war. Three years have passed, many different events have taken place, and only the demands of the Russian Federation have remained almost unchanged. Only now, in addition to their previous demands, they demanded that four Ukrainian regions be handed over to them, otherwise, according to Medinsky, they would demand “six or seven.” The delegation did not explain where they would get the resources for this, given that they have been attempting to occupy Pokrovsk for a year now.

It is clear that such negotiations could not end in anything (this was evident even before they began). Only through the mediation of Turkey was it possible to agree on a large-scale exchange of prisoners – 1,000 for 1,000.

So what about Trump? If he had imposed hellish sanctions, as agreed with the Europeans, he would have admitted to the whole world and his voters that Mr. Putin had “subtly” thrown him under the bus, in true KGB style. But Trump had large-scale business deals with Russia in mind. Therefore, imposing sanctions on Russia is completely impractical for him. So, he resorted to his usual tactic – “playing dumb.” Like, “Why would he, Putin, come to Istanbul if I wasn't there? Why would I go if he wasn't there?” (I'm quoting almost verbatim; this statement by the 47th US president will probably go down in history). And in general, “no one there will be able to decide anything until Putin and I meet face to face.” The 47th president's cherished dream – to repeat his meeting with the Russian dictator after their one and only meeting in Helsinki in 2017 – seemed close... (However, every US president has marked the beginning of his term with a meeting with his Russian counterpart and sooner or later has learned from his own experience that it is impossible to do business with him – why should Trump be an exception? Everyone wants to get their own bumps from this interaction).

Trump announced a telephone conversation with Putin, which took place on May 19. The US president and the Russian dictator spoke for two hours. Of course, no one reported what they agreed on (except for general phrases in official press releases).

War amid talks of negotiations

Of course, there has been no ceasefire. It seems that this “unconditional” condition has been removed from the agenda of the US president's mediation efforts. Russian officials are coming up with new “conditions” every day, which are basically just old claims that make it pretty clear they want to destroy Ukraine as an independent country.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has said something totally new that he didn't mention during his campaign. First, Trump himself has clearly hinted that he may recognize Crimea as Russian de jure (the special declaration made by his administration during his first term in 2018, that the US “will never recognize the occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation,” which was announced by the State Department, has been completely forgotten). After the uproar that followed this statement, he allegedly reiterated that Crimea is Ukrainian.

Second, if, as they say, no effective steps are taken to achieve a ceasefire, his administration will completely abandon mediation in this “conflict” and switch to “more pressing” issues.

Meanwhile, the war has become even more intense – hundreds of drones and dozens of ballistic missiles are destroying Ukrainian cities, taking dozens of civilian lives and turning more and more Ukrainians into invalids. During Biden's time, the Russians at least refrained from striking Kyiv; now, strikes on the capital are almost daily.

All records were broken on May 24–26, when the US commemorates Memorial Day for those who died in all wars. For three nights in a row, Russian missiles and drones struck almost all Ukrainian cities. Videos of completely destroyed peaceful houses in a village near Kyiv spread around the world, bringing the Russian-Ukrainian war back to the front pages. Deep dissatisfaction with Trump's policy of appeasing Putin broke out even among his fellow party members.

It seems that Trump himself has lost his patience. “I've known him [Putin] for a long time, but something has happened to him. He's gone completely mad!” Trump wrote after these diabolical raids. Even more eloquent was Trump's second post, which some commentators called a “confession”: “What is he doing? He knows that if it weren't for me, Russia would be in big trouble!"

On the same day, Russian stock exchanges reacted to Trump's posts by crashing, as if as a result of Trump's trade wars.

After these posts, German Chancellor Merz officially announced that his country, as well as the US, Britain, and France, were lifting all restrictions on Ukraine's ability to strike military targets in Russia. On May 28, in Berlin, Zelenskyy and Merz signed an agreement under which Germany will invest in the production of long-range weapons in Ukraine and purchase its products in order to materially encourage Ukraine to produce its own weapons that can be used without restrictions. Merz stated that further deliveries of German weapons to Ukraine will be kept secret, thus not revealing whether Germany will supply Taurus missiles. In fact, with these demonstratively brutal strikes on civilian targets, Russia has outplayed itself, causing the war to move to a new stage that is even more dangerous for itself.

Coming to his senses, Putin asked Trump for a “second round” of negotiations between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations. Trump again postponed the introduction of “hellish” sanctions: “I will understand whether he is leading me by the nose in a week or two,” said the 47th US president.

Trump has the same tactic (or complete lack thereof) when it comes to the Russian dictator and the trade war with the EU: one day, threats of sky-high sanctions (or tariffs) and stock market crashes, and the next day, postponement of these steps as if nothing had happened.

It seems that neither he nor his entourage are not only unable to calculate the consequences of such behavior, but are also not opposed to throwing Europe at the feet of the Russian dictator. “Make America great again”?!

Is distrust of European allies rooted in history?

Trump and his officials have repeatedly hinted at their intention to withdraw from European affairs during the election campaign. The biggest complaint against their European colleagues is that they are “using the US” and are not doing anything for their own security. At the same time, neither Trump nor any of his close associates have mentioned the only time in history when Article 5 of the Washington Treaty of NATO was officially invoked – after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York. Then all NATO members came to the aid of the US in the “war on international terrorism” it had declared (how it was waged is a completely different question).

However, Trump is a “master of deals” (whether he really is, as we can see, is debatable), not a geopolitician and, even less, a “politician of values.” And the EU, Britain, and the Scandinavian countries remain ardent supporters of preserving the international system of values, which was built on the experience of their unprecedented suffering in the 20th century. and ensured the prosperity of the entire Euro-Atlantic civilization for almost 80 years. This system has undergone crisis and changes, but is far from destroyed and, as current European leaders believe, is still able to regulate international relations.

Alex Rougande, a graduate student at Columbia University, shows in Newsweek, deeply analyzing relations between the United States and Europe, that the cracks in the transatlantic alliance are not new. In addition to well-known facts about the periods of the First and Second World Wars, the researcher cites a very eloquent historical episode – 1956, the events around the Suez Canal.

“In 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, which had previously been controlled by the Suez Canal Company, which was in turn controlled by France and Great Britain. Fearing that the Red Sea shipping lanes would be cut off, Great Britain and France secretly planned military action in alliance with Israel against Egypt. But President Eisenhower, fearing that Egypt would shift to the side of the Soviet Union, supported Nasser and pressured his allies to back down, which allowed Egypt to retain control of the canal and reduce British and French influence in the Middle East.”

This episode became the starting point, since when the paths not only of Europe and the United States, but also within Europe, have diverged somewhat: Britain began to coordinate its policies more closely with the States, while France, on the contrary, distanced itself somewhat and “increased its independence,” according to Rougande.

Under Trump, the cracks have deepened. This is due to disagreements not only regarding the “unevenness” in defense spending, but also systemic differences.

“The idea that Western Europe is riding free on the US defense machine has spread in the Republican Party since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Reagan-era conservatives like former Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell have staunchly defended America’s $183 billion investment in Ukraine’s defense. But other members of the party like Vance have urged Western Europe to take the lead so America can shift its focus elsewhere. While this issue has been at the center of America’s relations with Europe for much of the past three years, other ideological, cultural and historical trends have played a role in shifting that relationship from the cozy Reagan days to the icy atmosphere under Trump. It remains to be seen to what extent these changes in relations reflect a new defense strategy rather than a response to growing cultural divides between the Republican Party and Western Europe,” the researcher writes.

The claims about “free use” are somewhat exaggerated, and most importantly, they have a shifted emphasis. Europe did not “use” the United States intentionally; reducing defense spending was a general trend of Euro-Atlantic civilization, including the United States, after, as it seemed for a long time, the end of the Cold War.

Moreover, the tendency to “trade rather than fight” in general and with the Russian Federation in particular was the essence of this civilization until Putin’s brazen violation of its foundations in 2014 (in fact, since 1999, but then no one preferred to notice it, and the “war on international terrorism” also contributed to the Russian ghoul).

Rougande cites statistical data:

“According to the World Bank, the military spending of the European Union as a percentage of GDP has been decreasing since the early 1960s. However, the greatest drop – from 2.6% to 1.3% – occurred between 1987 and 2014, and this figure only began to increase in 2019. America also began to spend less between 1986 and 2001, but after the terrorist attacks of September 11, this figure increased from 3.1% to 4.9% in 2010, and then decreased to 3.4%.

“Given the Trump administration’s perception of the EU and its leaders as an integral part of the ‘liberal order’ [in the world – N.B.], it is possible that hostility towards this region may intensify,” concludes Rougande.

As if to confirm this, Trump suddenly “right off the bridge” on May 23 announced the introduction of 50% tariffs on imported goods with the EU from June 1 (although the 3 months for which he postponed the tariffs end on July 9 – despite the fact that on May 16 the US credit index was lowered, and after the announcement of these additional tariffs the American stock markets collapsed again). I have suspicions: is this not a reaction of the "deal maker" to the results of the elections in Romania, where voters "rolled out" an ultra-right supporter of Trumpism, electing a supporter of European values and support for Ukraine? Because the result of the Romanian elections may indicate (at least in the eyes of American Trumpists) that voters in the EU are already rejecting Trumpism, which, it would seem, has loomed on the horizon.

Added to these circumstances are the illusions of some part of Trump's entourage (and perhaps even his own) that Putin's Russia can be brought closer to the US and torn away from China. Although numerous political scientists clearly show that these illusions are futile, they have not yet been completely dispelled.

America’s greatness vs. “America First”?

However, even among Republicans, there are growing concerns about the dangers of the US withdrawing from Europe.

This is the opinion of Clifford May, founder of the non-governmental Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative think tank founded after the September 11, 2001, attacks (interview with Radio Liberty correspondent Todd Prince).

Although, according to Prince, it is good that as a result of Trump’s actions and the war unleashed by Putin in Europe, there is already, in his words, a “redistribution of responsibility for common defense towards greater balance” between the US and its European allies, if the US withdraws from Europe, it will lose its status as a great power.

“There is a certain tension, at least it seems to me, between the slogans of “America First” and “Make America Great Again.” To be “great again,” America must be a leader. But it cannot be a leader if it gives in to adversaries like communist China, which [President] Xi Jinping clearly seeks to do,” Prince quotes May as saying.

The interview emphasizes the danger of not recognizing that NATO, and therefore the United States, is not just confronting Russia, but also an “axis of evil.”

“Despite ideological differences – Chinese and North Korean types of communism, Islamic theocracy in Iran, and neo-imperialism in Russia – [May] rejects the idea that their cooperation is purely opportunistic.

China, North Korea, and Iran are materially supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine with missiles, drones, and other weapons systems. Pyongyang has even sent more than 11,000 troops to help, while Russia could offer sensitive submarine technology to China and North Korea in response, according to Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command.

Meanwhile, all four countries are accelerating their military buildup, particularly in missile production, and as a result, the United States is no longer safe from attack. May argues that unless Washington and its European allies increase defense spending, they risk strategic decline.

Selling US-made weapons to Ukraine would benefit the United States, May says. “It would support our factories, strengthen our defense-industrial base, and ensure that Putin cannot simply regroup and attack again in a few years.”

May warns that the danger of a Russian attack on the Suwalki Corridor is real.

Putin “could try to create a land bridge to Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave divided by NATO members Poland and Lithuania, just as he did with Crimea.”

According to May, this scenario poses an existential test for NATO.

“Are we fighting for a road through southern Lithuania? If not, NATO will fall apart,” he said.

How much this worries Trump and his supporters is currently unknown, since most Americans are still inclined to the system of values and loyal to their allies. This is evidenced, in particular, by the growing disagreements within the Republican Party over Trump’s personal attitude towards the Russian dictator. Currently, 81 out of 100 senators, from both parties, are ready to support the bill on tougher sanctions against the Russian Federation. For now, they are waiting to see whether the owner of the White House will mature enough to realize the need for them.

Trump’s Middle East tour – abandoning Israel?

In addition to the complete uncertainty over Ukraine, political analysts noted with surprise another sharp turn in Trump’s foreign policy: his visits to three Gulf countries and the striking absence of a visit to Israel.

In addition to the almost openly demonstrative disrespect for its closest strategic ally, this tour sharply shifted the emphasis from US geopolitical influence in the Middle East to openly businesslike, economic deals with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, without regard to Israel’s security interests and even to a large extent to US security.

In Riyadh, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Donald Trump signed an agreement on the sale of $142 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia on May 13. “The White House statement called the deal “the largest defense cooperation agreement ever concluded by Washington.” The administration of former US President Joe Biden tried unsuccessfully to conclude a similar defense pact with Riyadh as part of a broader agreement that would have normalized the Saudi kingdom's relations with Israel. However, both sides have now apparently forgotten about Israel's interests. Donald Trump has now called Prince Mohammed bin Salman "an incredible person," adding that the connection between their two countries is now "stronger than ever," notes Alexander Dubrovsky on Radio Liberty (Russian edition).

In addition, Trump has agreed with the Saudis to increase oil production, which, of course, will reduce oil prices. Whether this will affect Putin enough remains to be seen. Equally significant mutual investments are specified in agreements with Qatar and the UAE. In the Emirates, in particular, the parties signed an agreement to create a large international center for artificial intelligence. In contrast to the icy relations with the leaders of Europe, here Trump bathed in Eastern hospitality. Undoubtedly, he achieved mutually beneficial economic relations between the mentioned countries and the United States, but how?

In Qatar, in particular, Trump agreed only on the release of one of the 21 still alive hostages captured by Hamas in Israel on the infamous day of October 7, 2023, – a US and Israeli citizen Idan Alexander. What awaits the rest of the hostages, how the war between Israel and Hamas will end – all this was left out of the question. And more! In Qatar, Trump received a luxurious palace plane worth $400 million as a gift. It was issued as an official gift to the US government, it will be used as the official presidential plane – and this is no longer considered a bribe.

Trump also held a very controversial meeting in Saudi Arabia with the acting president of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa. In the recent past, he belonged to Al-Qaeda, but later his group allegedly severed ties with it, but is he really building a pro-Western state in Syria, albeit not a democratic one (the East is after all)? It seems that he is oriented towards Turkey, but to what extent, what kind of internal structure is being built in modern Syria, there is great uncertainty. According to many reports, the country is again on the verge of a new outbreak of civil war.

But maybe American investments will keep the numerous groups in Syria from the temptation to sort out relations with weapons?

“White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt said that Trump, during a meeting with al-Sharaa, urged him to establish diplomatic relations with Israel and continue the fight against terrorism. Al-Sharaa, in turn, told Trump that he would welcome American investments in Syria’s oil and gas industry,” Dubrovsky notes.

Will these purely business relations with the US finally tear Syria away from the Russian Federation? And from China? Again, uncertainty.

Trump attempted to apply an old principle to relations with the Middle East – "where there is trade, there is no war." It is already clear that Putin does not go along with it. Whether this principle will work in relations with the Arab world remains to be seen. Whether this will harm Israel and push Netanyahu into Putin’s arms remains to be seen.

Historical examples must also be taken into account. The principle of trade and business benefits as opposed to militant ideologies – but without clearly formulated demands to build a societal system compatible with the West – was already attempted by the US in the 1990s with regard to Russia and also China. The consequences are plain to see. Having taken advantage of the benefits of trade and business relations, both countries returned to aggressiveness towards their well-wishers. Won't the same thing happen with Arab monarchies?

Challenges and opportunities for Ukraine

Not only domestic, but also foreign policy of the United States under Trump increasingly resembles the Brownian movement with the ultimate goal of destroying the system of international law and laws and replacing it with a chaotic system of individual trade and business agreements. This policy, especially with regard to Europe, poses significant challenges for Ukraine.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump may withdraw from the self-proclaimed mediation in the Russian-Ukrainian war, which Putin is pushing him to do. Whether the United States will abandon Ukraine, and therefore Europe, by stopping arms supplies, is an open question. Perhaps Trump will sell American weapons to Ukraine, for which European allies will pay – this is still unclear. Trump's relations with his fellow party members in Congress and the mood among his voters may play a decisive role here.

However, Trump's Middle East tour has led me to a somewhat unusual idea – I will express it as a guess. Ukraine already has certain relations with the Arab monarchies, particularly in humanitarian matters. Shouldn't we conclude business agreements with them? Of course, not on the scale of the United States, but more modest ones wouldn't hurt either. In particular, in the field of weapons?

Such agreements against the backdrop of the new Trump world could open up additional opportunities for Ukraine to supplement its cooperation with Europe and the United States itself.

After all, in today's world, Ukraine absolutely needs to master the art that the founder of the modern independent Ukrainian state, Leonid Kravchuk, brought to perfection: maneuvering between raindrops, even when the rain is pouring down in a continuous downpour.