The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Brian Milakovsky lives in Bath. He worked in humanitarian and economic recovery programs in eastern Ukraine from 2015 to 2023. He fled that region with his wife and daughter at the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Despite the clashing of personalities at the meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Feb. 28, the root cause of its breakdown was the fundamental mismatch in their visions of America’s role in a possible settlement of the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Zelenskyy most likely sees Western (and especially American) military support as the only factor that could possibly hold the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin within the bounds of a ceasefire. In his mind there is no point in negotiating a settlement without Western security guarantees or at least assurance of long-term arms transfers, as this would just be glorified capitulation.
In contrast, Trump likely sees U.S. security guarantees almost as an impediment to negotiating a settlement, which he envisions reaching through a series of concessions. As Trump angrily posted on Truth Social after the failed meeting, “Zelensky thinks our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.” Trump’s negotiators went so far as to say that the foundation for a settlement could be the unsigned Istanbul Agreement of 2022, committing Ukraine to drastically reducing its army and arsenal and foregoing Western arms transfers.
When reporters asked last week what would stop Putin from simply violating such an advantageous deal, Trump indicated that his personal authority and relationship with the Russian dictator would keep the latter compliant. In addition, he claims that if Kyiv signs a profit-sharing deal with Washington for development of its critical minerals, this will create American interests on Ukrainian soil making foreign invasions less likely, though he has not elaborated exactly how.
In a very different and more dangerous way, Trump is falling into the same trap as his predecessor Joe Biden. Namely, he is refusing to pursue the true balance of deterrence and concessions that can end the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In the run-up to Russia’s full scale invasion in 2022, President Biden signalled readiness for high-level talks on one of Putin’s primary grievances: possible future NATO membership for Ukraine. But Putin contemptuously ignored this concession because it was not matched with a meaningful military deterrent.
Biden agreed to major arms transfers once Ukraine had demonstrated its lasting power on the battlefield, but always capped military aid at a level he felt would avoid a major escalation with Russia. By definition, this meant that U.S. weapons were insufficient to really tip the war in Ukraine’s favor. Biden had the moral responsibility to help Ukraine craft a “lousy peace” strategy, combining deterrents with concessions to reach a tolerable negotiated settlement with Russia. But he essentially disengaged, leaving total ambiguity about how the war could be brought to a close.
Trump was right to break from Biden’s aimless, open-ended Ukraine policy. But his alternative prioritizes getting Russia to “yes” over addressing the fundamental concerns of the victim, Ukraine. The angriest exchanges in the Oval Office began when Zelenskyy insisted that Russia had already violated diplomatic deals with Ukraine not backed up with real force.
With tempers so high, the best path forward is probably a pause in U.S.-Ukraine communications. After the failed U.S. meeting, Zelenskyy immediately traveled to London, where other Western leaders promised billions in military support and the British and French pledged a new ceasefire plan.
Zelenskyy should work to convince Trump that this new approach is exactly what he has been calling for for years: Europe shouldering more of the security burden in Ukraine. Together with the signing of the critical minerals deal with Ukraine, which Zelenskyy has signaled is still possible, this could end up looking like a win.
But there is still a risk that Trump will insist on the primacy of his bilateral negotiations with Putin, allowing Russia to claim that the “true” peace deal was scuttled by Zelenskyy. The president seems to have taken a dangerous move in that direction by freezing military aid to Ukraine on March 3.
Americans, and especially Republicans, must convey to the president their preference for a genuine “peace through strength,” with the vigorous deterrents that implies, over a concessions-only settlement that leaves Ukraine perilously exposed.
