Is the deal to Send U.S. weapons to Ukraine at the expense of European countries a victory for Trump, why did the U.S. President give Putin a 50-day deadline, and what could Keith Kellogg’s visit to Ukraine change?
These and other key issues were discussed on Radio NV by Volodymyr Solovian, PhD, Head of the Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group at the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center.
Full text version of the interview:
What is the main difference in the new U.S. policy toward assistance to Ukraine?
For Donald Trump, it is crucial to demonstrate that U.S. military aid to Ukraine will no longer be free of charge. Fhe financial burden will fall on the shoulders of Europeans. In fact, we are seeing the implementation of the messages Trump campaigned on last year. So, there is nothing sensational about it.
The continuation of U.S. arms supplies is undoubtedly a positive signal and the key outcome at this stage. It is likely that for at least the next two months, we will not see any abrupt interruptions in assistance from Washington.
Today, it’s known that countries like France, Italy, and the Czech Republic are opting out of purchasing U.S. weapons for Ukraine. Why?
It’s worth recalling that European analysts and government officials have long voiced concerns about the state of the European defense industry. Nowadays about 80% of the weaponry in NATO’s European armies is manufactured outside of Europe.
European capitals now realize they can no longer fully rely on the U.S. as the sole guarantor of their security. While the U.S. is not withdrawing from Europe and even reaffirmed its NATO Article 5 commitments at the recent summit in The Hague – the Trump administration’s actions are pushing European politicians to seriously consider strengthening their own defense capabilities, especially in light of potential confrontations with Russia in the 2020s and 2030s.
In the context of Trump’s recent remarks about arms supplies to Ukraine, we are not talking about a collective financial contribution from all of Europe. Most likely, at this stage, Germany will finance the delivery of the most urgently needed items – such as air defense systems and scarce surface-to-air missiles. I assume other countries, primarily in Northern Europe, will join this initiative.
Recently, media reports revealed that during a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Donald Trump asked why Kyiv was not striking Moscow. The next day, the U.S. president took the opposite position, stating that Washington opposes attacks on the Russian capital. Why such a drastic shift?
First and foremost, I believe this quote was likely taken out of context. To assess Trump’s remark, one would need to see the full transcript of his conversation with Ukraine’s president.
In general, the U.S. president’s rhetoric appears volatile, as he has yet to make final decisions regarding relations with the Kremlin. While his advisors tend to use card game metaphors, I believe this situation resembles chess logic. Trump proposed a draw in the opening moves. But the Kremlin rejected the offer because Moscow is dissatisfied with its current “tournament standing.”
So, the match moves into the middlegame, characterized by complex positional maneuvering. For Ukraine, this means a prolonged and bloody struggle for survival in the months and possibly years ahead.
What does the 50-day deadline Trump gave Putin mean?
It means that the U.S. remains “in the game.” Afterward, the U.S. may reconsider issues such as sanctions and asset seizures. But these decisions will be made gradually. I wouldn’t expect the U.S. to impose tough sanctions on Russia as early as this autumn. Final decisions will likely depend on the White House’s assessment of Russia’s ability to conduct offensive operations in the fall and winter.
It’s also worth noting that Trump’s new “deadline” coincides with Putin’s planned visit to China to celebrate the 80th anniversary of victory over Imperial Japan. It’s clear that Moscow will try to showcase its alliance with Beijing. This Russia-China factor could also influence Trump’s stance.
Will Putin use this time to try to advance on the front lines?
I think so. Trump has come to understanding that Putin is obsessed with Ukraine and cannot be appeased with partial concessions. Therefore, the U.S. president has stepped aside, allowing Putin to act on his imperial ambitions. At the same time, Trump “balanced the field” by resuming the delivery of critically needed weapons to Ukraine.
However, we must recognize that, in the coming months, Ukraine will receive aid packages under contracts signed during the previous U.S. administration. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect a dramatic shift on the battlefield in the near future. The only potential breakthrough could occur if the U.S. assists Ukraine in technological areas – such as missile systems. But the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s policy toward the Russia-Ukraine track casts serious doubt on such prospects.
Let’s talk about the recent visit of Trump’s special representative Keith Kellogg to Kyiv. Was he tasked with rebooting U.S. policy on Ukraine?
Yes, I believe Kellogg’s mission reflects a rise in his institutional clout. One of the objectives of his visit may have been to assess Ukraine’s most urgent needs in terms of weaponry. Washington needs to know what level of aid will help preserve the current status quo until the fall, allowing Trump to enter the next phase of talks with Putin from a stronger position.
Could Trump change his position before the 50-day deadline?
That possibility cannot be ruled out. Trump’s emotional instincts and intuition play a dominant role in his decision-making. This creates unpredictability, which is problematic for the Kremlin. Russian analysts cannot predict how the White House will respond to provocative moves or attempts at blackmail.
It’s telling that after Kirill Dmitriev – one of the Kremlin’s key communicators with the U.S. administration – referred to an “historic conversation” between the U.S. and Russian leaders, Trump publicly expressed dissatisfaction with Putin the very next day. This shows that no final decisions have been made yet.
In the fall, we may witness a continuation of the current pendulum strategy, with Trump’s favor swinging between Kyiv and Moscow. Still, a scenario where the White House adopts a more consistent line of support for Ukraine remains entirely possible.