Trump administration continues intensive efforts aimed at securing a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. On this occasion, the Czech news and analytical portal Forum24 spoke with Volodymyr Solovian, head of the Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group, about Putin and Trump’s strategies, the significance of the U.S. military aid, and possible European alternatives.
How do you interpret Putin’s reaction to the American proposal for a thirty-day ceasefire? While Ukraine immediately agreed to it, Russia is clearly stalling…
The Kremlin is trying to leverage Donald Trump’s peacekeeping ambitions to establish relations with the American administration that would secure a decisive advantage over Ukraine. Putin’s insistence on obviously unacceptable preconditions, such as halting arms supplies and mobilization in Ukraine, indicates that the Kremlin has no intention of stopping its war machine. Ultimately, the shift in the U.S. position on the war and its relations with Russia presents Moscow with a tempting opportunity to exhaust Ukraine, which will be significantly weakened by the loss of a substantial portion of American support.
From my perspective, Putin’s strategy will be to prolong negotiations while denying Trump the ceasefire he desires. The Kremlin is likely betting that, in the event of a diplomatic failure, the U.S. president will either resume pressure on Ukraine, forcing it into further concessions, or lose interest in Ukraine and attempt to build relations with Russia regardless of the state of the conflict. Both scenarios are advantageous for Russia, as they allow it to retain sufficient resources for offensive actions at least throughout 2025.
You mentioned Donald Trump’s “peacekeeping” ambitions. How can his actions regarding Russian aggression be assessed?
Donald Trump seeks to end hostilities as soon as possible. He will likely attempt to secure an agreement between Kyiv and Moscow on a ceasefire within the first 100 days of his second presidential term (by the end of April). Trump views a ceasefire as the first step toward a long-term settlement that would open the door to negotiations on key issues. In contrast, Putin benefits from negotiations taking place during active hostilities, as this allows the Kremlin to maintain battlefield initiative.
The approach of the U.S. president suggests that instead of a “just peace,” the U.S. now prioritizes “immediate peace.” However, this does not change the fundamental fact that the only real “stop button” of the war has always been in the Kremlin. The greatest threat not only to Ukraine but also to global security is that Russia’s leadership may perceive Trump’s focus on a quick ceasefire as an opportunity to manipulate the American president.
Why, in your opinion, do some people in Trump’s close circle display open disdain for Ukraine?
During the 2024 election campaign, Ukraine unfortunately became a hostage to the confrontation between Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, I believe that the bias against Ukraine among many in Trump’s inner circle stems primarily from domestic political factors.
Additionally, financial and military aid to Ukraine contradicts the isolationist views held by a significant portion of Trump’s supporters.
Many of the new administration’s initiatives that at first glance seem to be directed against Ukraine actually originate from a reassessment of U.S. strategy regarding China. From the White House’s perspective, the US should minimize its presence in less strategically important regions to free up resources for the Indo-Pacific.
Kyiv is undoubtedly concerned about the appointment of individuals with openly anti-Ukrainian views to high positions in the U.S. administration. However, the composition and policies of Trump’s cabinet largely depend on personal loyalty to the president. As long as the White House maintains post-election courage, high-ranking U.S. officials – even if they personally disagree – will adhere to the president’s foreign policy views. At this stage, Ukraine should focus on direct communication with Trump himself to effectively convey its positions.
What impact did the temporary suspension of U.S. aid and intelligence sharing, announced by Trump after his scandalous dispute with Zelensky, have on Ukraine?
According to official reports, the suspension of U.S. military aid lasted approximately a week, which was not long enough to significantly harm Ukraine’s defense capabilities. Notably, even before the decision to freeze weapons and intelligence supplies, the White House had begun pressuring Ukrainian authorities regarding a strategic minerals agreement. Given Trump’s impulsive style in international politics, it was expected that military aid would be used as leverage to force Kyiv into concessions.
How dependent is Ukraine on U.S. aid now?
In my opinion, thanks to increased domestic production and supplies from European countries, U.S. aid is no longer critical in the areas of ammunition and drones. This means that even if the freeze on U.S. military aid lasts several months, it will not be fatal to the AFU’s ability to kill Russian occupiers.
However, civilian and energy infrastructure in the rear will become significantly more vulnerable to Russian missile and drone attacks.
Regardless of the outcome of ceasefire negotiations, it is clear that Europe must significantly increase its assistance to Ukraine. What are the most urgent needs at the moment?
Priority number one is assessing the ability to replace U.S. weaponry in case the Trump administration completely halts support and blocks already contracted supplies. Ukraine is most critically dependent on Starlink communication systems and Patriot air defense missiles. While the air defense issue can be relatively quickly addressed by supplying European SAMP/T systems, developing a European alternative to Starlink could take years, and Ukraine simply does not have that time.
In the long term, deeper integration between the European and Ukrainian defense sectors is necessary. One of the most promising areas is UAV systems. Last year, Ukraine produced 2.2 million tactical drones (mostly FPV) and 100,000 long-range UAVs. European governments should more actively encourage their manufacturers to scale up drone production. At the same time, the rapid development of drone- and electronic warfare (EW) must be taken into account. Therefore, the focus should not only be on quantitative growth but also on deep analysis of battlefield trends and rapid integration of innovations.
You mentioned Starlink, owned by billionaire Elon Musk’s company SpaceX. There have been many speculations in recent weeks about the possibility of its shutdown. Can this potential risk be minimized, given that there is no time to develop a European alternative?
European satellite systems such as OneWeb or Eutelsat Konnect could partially replace Starlink, but this process will take several months. Moreover, at present, these systems cannot fully replace Starlink, although they are capable of meeting the basic needs of the Ukrainian army. Transitioning to European satellite communication systems will also significantly increase costs – one OneWeb terminal, for example, costs approximately ten times more than a Starlink terminal. Nevertheless, this should not deter European manufacturers from developing Starlink alternatives – this is a natural process of technological advancement, and the war will only accelerate innovations.
You specialize in countering Russian disinformation. Does it directly impact Ukraine?
In the current phase of the information war against Ukraine, Kremlin ideologists are actively relying on social media. This is particularly evident within Ukraine itself, as Telegram, which is filled with pro-Russian content, has become the primary news source for Ukrainians. Approximately 80% of Ukrainian citizens receive their information through this platform. According to sociological surveys, only a small percentage of Ukrainians report following pro-Russian groups on Telegram. However, in my opinion, this data is not entirely reliable, as Russians often create fake pseudo-Ukrainian channels that are actually administered from Russia and controlled by Russian intelligence services. Moreover, not all respondents are willing to openly admit that they follow Z-channels.
An even greater cognitive threat is TikTok. The TikTok algorithm actively facilitates the spread of disinformation and effectively selects propaganda content for users based on their personal interests. As a result, TikTok has become a powerful tool for manipulating public opinion and one of the most dangerous platforms for the Kremlin’s informational influence.
What narratives is Russia trying to spread in Ukraine?
Russia’s disinformation campaign in Ukraine is currently focused primarily on discrediting mobilization, amplifying feelings of betrayal due to the actions of the U.S. administration and the indecisiveness of European partners, as well as accusing President Zelensky of “refusing” to end the war. Clearly, the main goal of these narratives is to deepen internal divisions in Ukrainian society and weaken the combat potential of the Ukrainian army, which is experiencing a shortage of personnel.
The U.S. has recently increased pressure on Ukraine to hold presidential elections as soon as possible. What measures can be taken to protect them from an intensified Russian disinformation campaign?
It is impossible to completely prevent Russia from attempting to influence the election results. The main tools of Russian disinformation operations will be social media, particularly Telegram and TikTok. Ahead of the elections, Ukraine may block certain propaganda channels on Telegram. However, the greatest influence on public opinion among Ukrainian voters will come from so-called “interpreters” – seemingly independent video bloggers who are often financially supported by Russian intelligence services and spread pro-Kremlin interpretations of socially significant topics.
What risks does Russia’s informational influence pose to the elections?
Russia will not have its own candidate in the upcoming presidential elections, as the electoral base of pro-Russian forces in Ukraine is largely concentrated in the occupied territories. Therefore, Moscow will focus on discrediting the electoral process and undermining the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government. In this regard, Russia’s propaganda efforts will be aimed at reducing voter turnout and amplifying narratives about election fraud to delegitimize the results.
Another serious risk is the weaponization of the fear of war. I believe this narrative will be the foundation of Russian informational operations against Ukraine. By manipulating the threat of renewed hostilities, Russia will try to influence the electoral behavior of Ukrainians, encouraging them to support politicians who promise peace with Moscow at any cost, even at the expense of national interests.
the Moscow Patriarchate
Source: forum24.cz
