Can the 28-point plan announced by Donald Trump allow the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to be transferred from the military to the political channel? Former Deputy Foreign Minister and diplomat Lyubomir Kyuchukov spoke to FACTI.
- Mr. Kyuchukov, how does US President Donald Trump act when we talk about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine - as a diplomat or a businessman?
- Trump's approach to foreign policy has always been defined as transactional – which, loosely translated, sounds like commercial. Which in practice means always seeking a result through pressure, but from a position of strength.
Trump has de facto single-handedly abolished the equality of states in international relations.
He avoids all multilateral formats and prefers to solve problems on a bilateral basis - where the US almost always has stronger cards (if we go by the American president's style). With two exceptions: China in the economy and trade and Russia in security. These countries only talk to him on an equal footing.
- We saw an American list of 28 points, and with the clear message that there will be talk about the cession and acquisition of territories. This was completely rejected by Ukraine until recently. Why is the US raising the topic of dividing territories?
- There can be no end to the war without talks about territories. There is hardly any reason to believe that Ukraine can liberate the occupied territories militarily. That is why Zelensky spoke months ago about the formula “de jure and de facto“: that the occupied territories, being under Russian control, will not be legally recognized as Russian – not only by Ukraine, but also by anyone in Europe.
- By commenting on the redistribution of Ukrainian territory, isn't the US doing Russia's “ dirty work“?
- This is one logic. The other is that in this way the US takes responsibility for such a decision and limits further losses for Ukraine. And that this seems to be the most direct way to stop the war. If an analogy is to be sought – this reproduces the situation with the Syrian Golan Heights annexed by Israel. Which are not recognized as Israeli by anyone except the US – during Trump's first term. However, the legal recognition of the five Ukrainian regions as part of Russia is absolutely unacceptable for Ukraine.
- Because surely a direct conversation between Russia and Ukraine about territory would be more than difficult?
- The main problem here focuses on the fate of that part of Donetsk region that Russia does not control, but which it insists on handing over to it. The plan provided for Russia to withdraw from other territories that it occupies in four more Ukrainian regions: Sumy, Kharkiv, Dnepropetrovsk and Nikolaev. If such negotiations are to take place at all, the most problematic will probably be the talks on the liberation of Kupyansk in Kharkiv region (which is one of the main targets of the Russian offensive now) and the Kinburn Spit in Nikolaev region (the several-kilometer sandy strip closing the mouth of the Dnieper to the Black Sea).
- The US wants to be a mediator, but what is their interest? How do you see things?
- The US is not a mediator, but an interested participant in the Russia-Ukraine negotiations. And they put their own interests first. Despite the fact that the proposed 28 points were closer to the Russian positions.
This is a completely American plan that reflects the American understanding of geopolitics and the dominant role of the US
in the world (it is not by chance that tasks are set for NATO, the EU, the G-7, the World Bank), protection of American business interests (from Ukraine through Europe to the Arctic), as well as Trump's personal ambitions (including to head the next Peace Council - after the one for Gaza). When talking about mediation, an interesting detail should be taken into account: in the text, the US defines itself as a mediator between Russia and NATO, and not as a member of the Alliance.
- We heard Japanese Prime Minister Sani Takaichi say that he would nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Prize. Is this becoming a fixed idea for the American president?
- Trump does not hide these ambitions. And a number of governments have already nominated him - Pakistan, Cambodia, Israel, Malta, Armenia, Azerbaijan... In return, they rely on American favor. If the war in Ukraine is stopped, it can be safely predicted that the next winner of the Nobel Peace Prize will be Donald Trump.
- First the US talks - Ukraine, then the EU. Why does the EU always stay away?
- Because so far the EU has stayed away from the ideas of negotiations. Over the years, our position has evolved from "war to victory" through "not allowing Ukraine to suffer defeat" to an ultimatum for an unconditional ceasefire. Always within the framework of the formula "peace from a position of strength". What was absent was the readiness for dialogue. And every war sooner or later ends with a political agreement.
- Now there is a chance to solve problems through negotiations, not through military action. Are the conditions for a "deal" good, if we listen to Trump?
- The conditions are difficult for Ukraine. The choice is between war and no war. Because the path to eventual peace will be very long and complicated. But the difference between the two states is measured in thousands of human lives and enormous destruction. For more than a year, Ukrainian polls have shown that about three-quarters of the country's citizens insist on ending the war, but more than half are against territorial concessions. Zelensky will always be accused: in one case - that he betrayed national interests and ceded territory; in the second - that the refusal to agree has led to many new victims.
- Without the US, Ukraine cannot wage war, and without Russia, there cannot be peace. How important is the word "compromise" in diplomacy?
- In diplomacy, it is believed that an agreement is sustainable if both sides are equally dissatisfied - because very rarely can they be equally satisfied. And this naturally requires compromises. It is obvious that without the military and political assistance of the US, Ukraine can hardly wage a successful war. It is enough to mention only the importance of intelligence data from the United States for such a key area of combat operations as the drone war. Naturally,
an agreement cannot be made without the consent of Ukraine, but also without Russia being a part of it – and having accepted its terms.
We are currently witnessing a rather unusual situation – Ukraine's allies are negotiating, and Russia is waiting. Which naturally puts it in a more favorable situation.
- Ukraine to give up part of its territories – Donetsk and Lugansk – in favor of Russia, in exchange for security guarantees from the United States. Is this a good option?
- Security guarantees for Ukraine are a key element of any agreement to end the war. Ukraine's membership in NATO is not on the agenda (this was officially stated by the Alliance itself after the Vilnius summit in 2023). There is no reason to assume that Russia will sign an agreement on the presence of troops of NATO member states on Ukrainian territory, which is the position of the so-called "coalition of the willing".
Here things seem clear enough: either there will be such troops, but there will be no agreement, or there will be an agreement, but there will be no troops.
In fact, in recent months there have been enough indications that the emphasis is already shifting from guarantees on land to guarantees in the air and sea - and it is no coincidence that one of the 28 points of the plan provides for the deployment of military aircraft in Poland. But the most reliable guarantee is what is planned to be the subject of a separate agreement between the United States and Ukraine - guarantees similar to those under Art. 5 of the NATO Charter, i.e. an attack on Ukraine will be treated as an attack on the United States.
It should be noted that the guarantees for a permanent cessation of the war also include a commitment from the Ukrainian side that it will not try to liberate the captured territories by military means.
- The cessation of hostilities on the front line is commented on, in which part of the territories will remain under Russian control, but de facto will not be recognized as Russian. Who benefits from this?
- The very transfer of the conflict from the military to the political field is in the interests of Ukraine. At least because the dynamics of the front lead to new losses - in territories, but first of all in people. In the course of the war, this is the second such opportunity - after the negotiations in Turkey in April 2022. By the way, at that time Ukraine was perhaps in its strongest negotiating position: Russian troops were forced to withdraw from the vicinity of Kiev, the Kharkiv region was liberated, the four regions were not declared Russian, even for Crimea a 15-year period was envisaged in which to seek a political solution to its status. Then, in the person of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Ukraine was advised to abandon the agreements reached - which led to much more difficult conditions today.
There is also another important aspect - the difficulties that Putin will have to deal with will be very serious after the end of the war.
Now Russian society is consolidated, but then it will face all the negative consequences of the war: economic - from sanctions, loss of markets and militarization of the economy; political - from international isolation; social - including due to the need to concentrate very significant funds on the restoration of the captured territories. Not least because of the so-called "Afghan syndrome" (for the US - Vietnamese), i.e. the adaptation of these hundreds of thousands of young people who have gone through the horrors of war.