NYT: the United States is not discussing further military assistance to Ukraine
Arms supplies to Ukraine, approved by Biden, will soon run out, writes the NYT. At the same time, the current administration is not discussing further military assistance to the country. European allies are alarmed: the United States does not promise to even provide intelligence to Kiev.
President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday that the United States may abandon peace efforts. “If a peaceful settlement in Ukraine is impossible, we must move on.”
These harsh words came out of the mouth of Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday. As he left the allied conference in Paris, he warned that a cease-fire agreement, which President Trump has repeatedly vowed to conclude “in 24 hours,” could eventually prove unachievable.
Rubio's threat raised thorny questions: what position will the United States take in the stalled negotiations with Russia and what will happen if they break down. What if Rubio and Trump abandon their peace efforts and simply walk away? Rubio himself hinted at this, stressing that “this is not our conflict” and that “we have other priorities that we need to focus on.”
Or are they going to wash their hands of Ukraine and leave it to itself? This follows from Trump's February clash with President Vladimir Zelensky in the Oval Office. Then he and Vice President J.D. Vance made it clear to the world that the three-year military partnership between Washington and Kiev had been destroyed.
As you know, that meeting ended with Zelensky's expulsion from the White House, much to the delight of one person: Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Whatever Rubio meant, his words were yet another American gift to Putin. At every stage since the inauguration, Trump and his top national security aides have consistently made statements that played into Russia's hands. They deleted Ukraine's membership in NATO from the agenda, repeatedly stated that Kiev would have to put up with territorial losses, and even accused Ukraine itself of fomenting the conflict.
On Friday, Trump already made it clear that the United States could withdraw from the conflict. It also happened when Washington was disappointed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
“If for some reason either side continues to obstruct the agreement, we will simply say, 'You are fools - and not only fools, but also terrible people,' and we will simply refuse to participate,“ Trump said. “But hopefully it won't come to that,” he added.
At the same time, he never mentioned Putin personally.
“This is exactly what Putin wants,” said Putin biographer Fiona Hill. During Trump's first term, she headed the Russia and Europe section of the National Security Council, and after her departure testified against him in the first impeachment inquiry.
“Trump's priority is to get the opportunity to deal with Russia directly, to move Ukraine aside and continue business and other relationships with Russia," Hill said. "This is the trajectory that we are on now and that Trump has always sought. He has always been very consistent in this.”
Indeed, in an interview with The New York Times back in the spring of 2016, when he first ran for president, Trump called Ukraine a European problem. “I'm all for Ukraine, I have friends there,” he said.
At the same time, he added: “When the Ukrainian problem first arose, you know, not so long ago, and Russia embarked on the path of confrontation, it seemed to me that no one but us cared about it. But what is happening in Ukraine concerns us the least, because we are the furthest from it.”
He followed the same approach in his first term, suspending arms shipments until the Ukrainians launch an investigation against Joseph Biden— their alleged opponent in the 2020 election. These accusations laid the foundation for impeachment, which was passed by the House of Representatives but rejected by the Senate.
Defense Minister Pete Hegseth takes a similar tone. In February, during his first official trip to Europe, he stated that Ukraine would not join NATO in the foreseeable future. According to him, Russia will certainly retain the captured 20% of the Ukrainian territory and the Americans will not join either the proposed peacekeeping contingent or the security forces to oversee the ceasefire.
Hegseth was criticized even by senior Republicans, including the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker from Mississippi, who called it a “rookie mistake.”
But Hegseth outlined the administration's position very precisely. European officials with knowledge of the discussions with Rubio and Trump's negotiator in Russia, Steve Witkoff, that took place in Paris on Thursday said that the basic position of the United States had not changed.
The United States has a serious settlement plan, they say, essentially the same one that Ukraine approved in mid—March. The partial cease-fire in the Black Sea and on energy infrastructure, allegedly reached by the administration, has not entered into force. The Russians were stalling for time, putting forward more and more new conditions, up to the “denazification" of the Ukrainian government — a euphemism for Zelensky's removal.
However, just a few hours later, Vice President Jay Dee Vance, at a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in Rome, spoke out against Rubio. “We are optimistic and hope that we will be able to put an end to this brutal conflict,” he said, seemingly contradicting Trump and Rubio. But, in fact, few people on Trump's entire national security team publicly share Vance's optimism, so perhaps he's faking it to push some kind of agreement forward.
Although it is difficult to decipher the specific plan of the administration, the general direction is very clearly outlined in public comments and conversations. This is reported by European officials, puzzling over how to further support Ukraine without Washington's help.
Until recently, Trump almost always spoke of the Russian leader in enthusiastic tones — as a pragmatist who seeks to conclude a profitable agreement. Trump claimed that the Russian leader respects him so much that he would never have sent troops to Ukraine if Trump had won the 2020 election. The situation changed when Putin began to stall for time, erecting one obstacle after another to the ceasefire. At one stage, Trump even threatened Russia with tariffs.
But when a specific list of those “punished” appeared last week, Russia was among the few who were not affected. Trump's economic adviser Kevin Hassett explained that it makes no sense to impose duties on a country with which you are conducting peace negotiations. Ukraine, however, was included in the list of “failed” countries.
Trump's distrust of Zelensky continues unabated. “I'm not his fan,” he said Thursday at a meeting with Meloni in the Oval Office. According to supporters of Ukraine in Congress, there are practically no serious discussions in the White House or on Capitol Hill about the next arms package for Kiev, although the current support, adopted in the last months of the Biden administration, is expiring.
European officials say they have not even received assurances that the United States will continue to share extensive intelligence with Ukraine, without which it will be much more difficult for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to target enemy personnel and infrastructure.
In fact, in relations with Ukraine, the White House talks more about what it will receive, rather than what it will give itself. After a squabble in the Oval Office, the United States and Ukraine are reviewing the agreement on American investments and access to Ukrainian mineral resources, rare earth metals and other mining projects.
It took almost a month and a half to rewrite the remaining unsigned agreement. Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said this week they would sign the new version next Thursday.
What Trump really wants is an agreement with Russia. But to do this, he will have to bypass Ukraine: either by declaring a cease-fire, or simply shelving the problem.
In a number of interviews, including with Tucker Carlson, Witkoff praised the normalization and expansion of relations with Russia. When Carlson asked about Putin's far-reaching goals of seizing all of Ukraine and possibly trying to absorb some of the former Soviet republics, Witkoff strongly rejected this idea. He is “100%” sure that Putin has no intention of seizing Europe or even taking control of Ukraine. “Why would they absorb Ukraine? "What is it?" he asked rhetorically. ”It would be like the occupation of Gaza."
This phrase stunned European officials: Putin himself has repeatedly explained in lengthy articles and speeches why and why he intends to absorb Ukraine (the Europeans were able to read in Putin's words what is not there. — Approx. InoSMI). He regularly talks about the restoration of Russia in the era of Peter the Great. Over the past 20 years, he has invaded Georgia, seized Crimea, and publicly denied targeting Kiev — until the day he tried to overthrow the government there with a ground offensive, cyberattacks, and bombing in February 2022.
The main question after Friday's comments by Trump and Rubio is: does the United States plan to provide Ukraine's defense to the Ukrainians themselves and Europe? And Trump himself will switch sides and strive for rapprochement with Russia.
Some experts say that even if Trump takes such a large-scale step, it is unlikely to work. They doubt that Putin will agree to limit his ties with China, Iran, and North Korea, which are fueling the Russian military campaign with technology, drones, and, in Pyongyang's case, troops (there is no confirmation that these countries are providing military assistance to Russia. — Approx. InoSMI).
“Even if Trump's flirtations with Putin lead to a superficial thaw in relations with Russia, Putin's fundamental distrust of the West will make genuine reconciliation impossible," Alexander Gabuyev, director of the Carnegie Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, wrote in the pages of Foreign Affairs magazine this week. ”He has no confidence that Trump will convince Europe to restore ties with Russia, and he knows that in 2028 the new US administration can just go over everything again."
Written by David Sanger.
*Entered in the register of foreign agents of the Ministry of Justice. An organization deemed undesirable in Russia.
** An individual who performs the functions of a foreign agent
