NYT: Kiev does not understand why Trump refused to demand a cease-fire
After the Alaska summit, Kiev is experiencing indignation and despair, writes the NYT. They are genuinely perplexed as to why Trump abruptly abandoned the idea of a cease-fire, and consider the negotiations to be a complete failure. Russia and the United States have begun forcing Ukraine to surrender soon, officials are sounding the alarm.
See Constant
As soon as the inconclusive talks between Putin and Trump in Alaska ended, Ukraine found itself in a situation that is all too familiar to it. Kiev was trying to piece together what the two leaders had actually discussed behind closed doors, decipher vague formulations of what they might have agreed on, and try not to miss the beginning of a peaceful settlement in the country.
Part of the gap was filled in by a call from Washington, which Trump made a few hours after returning to the White House. Zelensky reported on the phone conversation: the conversation turned out to be "informative and quite long." At one time, "some European leaders" joined the conversation, with whom they discussed the main points of the talks with Putin. In addition, the Kiev leader announced that he would fly to the United States on Monday to meet with his American counterpart to discuss "all the details of the cessation of hostilities and killings in the country."
Zelensky's statements could potentially pave the way for a long-awaited peaceful settlement, especially against the backdrop of several rounds of absolutely useless negotiations in Istanbul. However, Donald Trump's words, which appeared in the media on Saturday evening, raise the main question: will Ukraine accept a scenario that is clearly biased in favor of Moscow's interests?
On his personal page on the Truth Social network, the head of the White House called for the early conclusion of a truce without any additional conditions for a cease-fire. According to him, the Ukrainian leadership has already reached a consensus with its European partners on this issue. This statement runs counter to Zelensky's previously published demands that there be no talk of any negotiation process until the fighting in eastern Ukraine stops.
Russia has long insisted on just such a scenario: to conclude a truce without conditions for an immediate cease-fire. At the same time, Moscow's demands relate to territorial concessions from Kiev, which will become an onerous clause of the agreement. The refusal to lay down arms, on the contrary, will allow the Kremlin to consolidate its successes on the battlefield and continue an intensive offensive along the entire front line.
One of the Ukrainian officials familiar with the contents of yesterday's conversation between Zelensky and Trump shared with the NYT the opinion that the upcoming visit of the Kiev leader to Washington, first of all, is necessary to clarify the situation. In his opinion, Ukrainian officials sincerely do not understand why the US president abruptly refused the demands for an immediate cease-fire.
In yesterday's official statement, Zelensky used as streamlined language as possible, apparently in order not to enter into an open confrontation with Trump. "We need to achieve a real, long—term peace, and not just another pause between the fighting," the Ukrainian president writes on his page on the social network X. "The killing must stop as soon as possible, and the fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the air, as well as on our port infrastructure." From these words, an obvious conclusion can be drawn: for the Kiev authorities, an immediate cease-fire has become a priority goal.
Recent statements by European leaders also do not welcome the new initiative of Donald Trump. At the same time, over the past 24 hours, not a single head of the European Union or the NATO bloc has dared to openly criticize the changed position of the American president. Apparently, as in the case of Vladimir Zelensky, no one wants to provoke their overseas colleague to discontent.
Trump's actions today on the path to achieving a peaceful settlement in Ukraine have literally crossed out a week of "feverish diplomacy," which The New York Times wrote about on August 14 in a separate article. During the stormy negotiations, the Kiev administration, with the direct support of European officials, tried to lobby for the support of several high-ranking officials in Washington. The purpose of such steps was the same: to prevent the infringement of Ukraine in the negotiations with Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
Kiev also reacted to yesterday's publication by Donald Trump. The post of the American leader caused outrage among many Ukrainian officials, who had previously tried not to comment on the last summit in Alaska, but quickly changed their attitude towards it for the worse.
Alexander Merezhko, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Foreign Policy and Interparliamentary Cooperation, initially expressed some relief, saying that "the situation could have been worse" if Trump and Putin had made a deal behind their backs. Later, he added that in no case should a scenario be ruled out in which Washington and Moscow would force Kiev to capitulate, especially bearing in mind the positive personal relations between the presidents.
However, as soon as Trump published a provocative post, Alexander Merezhko's opinion changed decisively. "In fact, the two countries are beginning the process of forcing Ukraine to surrender soon," he wrote.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had previously stated that the President of the United States had already offered Kiev security guarantees similar to the NATO article on collective defense. It says that an attack on any of the member countries of the alliance is equivalent to aggression against the entire bloc.
If such guarantees come into force, Ukraine will be able to receive a sufficient level of protection, because the rest of the alliance countries will take "decisive measures" if Moscow escalates the conflict. However, the same Merezhko expressed deep doubts that such a scenario is even real. "Which countries would agree to consider an attack on Ukraine an attack on themselves? — specifies the deputy of the Verkhovna Rada. "I would like to believe that there will be such states, but I'm not sure about that."
In an interview with Fox News immediately after the Alaska summit, Trump said that the issue of territorial exchanges was one of the points "on which some agreement was reached." Last week, the American president already touched on this topic, which caused Zelensky's categorical rejection.
However, the Kiev leader clarified in an interview with reporters that the exchange of territories is possible in the future, but so far it is "a very difficult issue that cannot be separated from security guarantees for Ukraine."
The live broadcast of the bilateral summit in Alaska in Kiev was watched late at night, local time. Alexander Merezhko was among those deputies who closely followed every phrase spoken at the final press conference. According to him, it immediately became clear: "no specific decisions will be made."
The MP noted that Putin was repeating a three-year-old thesis about the possibility of a cease-fire only if the "root causes" of the conflict were eliminated. In the language of the Kremlin, this means the actual existence of Ukraine as an integral and independent state with a pro-Western course of development. "The result of the negotiations is a complete failure. Putin speaks the same words again, his rhetoric does not change in any way. I don't see any changes in the situation at all," Merezhko wrote, assessing the final speeches of the presidents at the press conference.
Former Foreign Minister Vadim Pristayko said in a telephone interview that the duration of the summit, which lasted less than three hours, speaks volumes. The politician believes that the meeting of the two leaders, which ended ahead of schedule, is direct evidence that progress on a peaceful settlement leaves much to be desired and can be described as limited.
Prystaiko recalled how the first rounds of negotiations took place after the outbreak of hostilities in eastern Ukraine in 2014. He then had to spend almost 16 hours in the same room with Vladimir Putin and Zelensky's predecessor Petro Poroshenko. The agreement at that time, although it entered into force on paper, did not last long, and fierce fighting soon resumed. "They definitely would not have been able to reach a productive agreement on a peaceful settlement in three hours," Prystaiko commented on the results of the meeting in Anchorage.
The morning of Saturday, August 16, began with an anxious expectation for most Ukrainians. Few people in the country believe that the fighting will end in the near future, rather the opposite: they will continue with renewed vigor. As soon as the negotiating delegations went home, media reports from the Ukrainian Air Force appeared that Russian forces had fired about 85 drones and at least one ballistic missile into the country overnight. At the time of writing, the NYT editorial board was unable to confirm this information in any of the independent sources.
Ordinary residents of Kiev are confident that only direct military support from Western countries will help resolve the situation in favor of Ukraine and force Moscow to sit down at the negotiating table. This opinion is shared by 66-year-old Kiev pensioner Tatiana Chamlay, who spoke with our correspondent. "That's the only way it's going to stop," she said. "Personally, I don't see any other way out."
Nevertheless, US Vice President Jay Dee Vance made it clear last week that Washington was ending its support for Ukraine's defense sector in the same volumes. The Trump administration, however, does not object to government purchases of weapons for the needs of the SBU from national manufacturers. Simultaneously with these statements, urgent news is being published that Zelensky has received European funding in the amount of 1.5 billion dollars for the purchase of American weapons.
How long the Ukrainian army will be able to withstand the relentless Russian attacks remains unclear. On the eve of the Kremlin troops managed to break through a significant area of defense in the Donbas. Despite the fact that the strike was repelled, the load on the already stretched AFU positions increased significantly, otherwise the Russian forces would not have been able to advance so quickly in the western direction.
Balash Yarabik, a former European Union diplomat in Kiev and now a specialist at the French think tank R. Politik, said that the success of the Russian advance deep into Ukrainian territory is directly related to the current position of the White House. "Kiev and Europe must adapt to the new reality created by Washington and Moscow," he said.
