Trump's attack on Zelensky: Can Ukraine withstand political pressure? An interview with the former Foreign Minister.

Donald Trump refers to Volodymyr Zelensky as a "dictator without elections." Elon Musk and U.S. Vice President JD Vance have also joined the harsh public attacks on the Ukrainian president. What is happening, and what consequences will this have for Ukraine?

We are currently in a phase of establishing the American administration characterized by an extremely high intensity of statements and proposals. This is done to create the impression of high activity and to demonstrate the White House's ability to quickly address all issues.

Trump began with statements about the necessity of Canada joining the United States, spoke a lot about the possibility of using military forces to control the Panama Canal, and demanded that Denmark cede Greenland. Later, he claimed that all Palestinians should be relocated from the Gaza Strip. However, these statements are not backed by any actions. Since then, nothing has changed. It remains as it was.

The media effect of such statements is very powerful. All of this is being discussed. These statements allow Trump to remain in the spotlight. As experienced politicians say in such situations: "Anything is accepted, except for an obituary." Now this so-called waterfall of comments has turned toward Ukraine. I believe all this will pass with time, just like the things I mentioned earlier.

I view all these statements with a certain skepticism. In my opinion, Trump is trying to create some "hype" and show Americans that he is fighting for their interests and money until the very end. You gave money to Ukraine, and I will get it back for you. This is quite a primitive tactic, but it impresses the less educated public in America. Trump wants to show that he can make anyone tremble. I think that over time, the tension between the United States and Ukraine will dissipate.

Why has Trump chosen a position that completely mirrors the Russian narrative? He speaks about the necessity of holding elections, denies Ukrainians NATO membership, suggests Ukraine sacrifice its territories, and blames Zelensky for the Russian invasion. At the same time, Russia remains unaddressed. How can this be explained?

To answer this question, one needs information that I do not possess. Some believe this is a tactic. That is, Trump wants to stimulate Russia toward constructive negotiations. However, if we look at the U.S.-Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia, we can conclude that they ended without results.

Everyone saw the faces of the Russian representatives in Riyadh. I did not see any pleasure there. I only heard the words diplomats usually use when there is nothing to talk about. They said they would create some negotiation group and mechanism, work on resuming operations of embassies in Moscow and Washington, and end the phase when we avoided negotiations with each other. Sorry, but that is talk about nothing. They sat there for four and a half hours, and in the end, they agreed on nothing.

All these statements in diplomatic practice mean only one thing: there are no results. If the Russians had stated in Riyadh that Ukraine would concede four regions, and the Americans supported it, otherwise Russia would have the right to advance and tear Ukraine apart, that would have been a practical outcome of the negotiations. But nothing like that exists.

The positions of the United States and Russia align only in one respect. Following the meeting in Riyadh, both sides began to almost simultaneously declare the necessity of holding elections in Ukraine before a peaceful settlement. What do you think about this?

I think Ukraine should play its cards wisely. We should also state that we want elections. No one is against elections, but we need the war to stop. We must have guarantees that it will not resume. We need to reverse everything: first guarantees, then a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, and only after that, elections. For God's sake! The same, just in a different order, as in the well-known formula.

We need to communicate this to the special representative of the U.S. president, Keith Kellogg. Nobody is against elections, but we need to understand when they can realistically be held. It needs to be explained that Putin will not recognize these elections under any circumstances. It is not in his interest to stop the war because he has not won. He has nothing to boast about. What will he tell his population? That he wanted to denazify Ukraine, but it didn't happen? He wanted to disarm Ukraine, but it didn't disarm. Now Ukraine has the strongest army in Europe.

Clearly, the assessment of Russia's negotiating position should begin with an evaluation of the situation on the battlefield, where the Russians are advancing, albeit very slowly. However, if Washington stops providing military assistance to Kyiv, could this become a lever of influence for Donald Trump to impose any conditions on Ukraine?

Imposing unfavorable conditions on Ukraine will not work. This was demonstrated by the disgraceful history of the Americans trying to force Kyiv to sign an absolutely burdensome and unrealistic minerals agreement. They claim, "We owe them." Perhaps, it is they who owe us?

They forced us to sign the Budapest Memorandum and give up nuclear weapons. They promised us security. It is absent. They did not fulfill their part of the obligations. Therefore, they should return the nuclear weapons that we gave up along with the Russians. My colleagues who participated in the negotiations on Ukraine's nuclear disarmament back then told me that it was just as much arm-twisting as it is today. The Americans insisted that the Ukrainians sign everything without any objections or amendments. Unfortunately, Ukraine did not have the strength to say "no" at that time. That is how it happened.

Now, after what happened then, I believe no one in Kyiv will agree to such concessions again. The American side demanded that the president of Ukraine sign a document (the minerals agreement — ed.) that should be signed by a minister, not the president. This is nonsense. Signing documents like a minerals extraction agreement requires domestic coordination. A multitude of agencies must be involved. Relevant ministries and services should be engaged. Initially, all documents are thoroughly studied and analyzed. Then the Ukrainian side proposes its conditions and perspective on what this agreement should look like. In turn, the American side reviews our proposals, agrees with some, and disagrees with others. Thus, a compromise position is gradually negotiated over many months. Cavalry-style solutions do not work for such issues.

Of course, we need to be realists: we receive 30% of our military support from Americans, 30% from Europe, and 40% of our military needs we fulfill ourselves. Undoubtedly, the American contribution to our defense is enormous. However, we must maximize our own weapon production and involve Europeans in this. If we depend on American military assistance at only 10-15%, it will be a completely different story. Currently, the focus in weapon production is shifting to UAVs and various types of missiles, which we can already produce independently.

We need to respond calmly, thoughtfully, and without insults to all statements currently coming from the American side. The United States has done a lot for us and will do even more. I do not think we should be overly worried right now. We must maintain our composure.

Thus, when Trump attacks Zelensky, should the Ukrainian president remain restrained and avoid engaging in a verbal war with the U.S. president?

Of course. Ukraine is dependent on the United States. This is an obvious fact. Therefore, responding with nonsense is not our style. We must clearly and unequivocally prove our correctness with facts and arguments, but calmly. There is no need to engage in a discussion when it is evident that the other side does not want to listen and is under some influence.

Can Kyiv leverage the cooling of relations between the United States and Europe to increase European military support for our country?

I am grateful to the Trump administration for statements that have shocked Europe. The Americans sent the Europeans into a knockout, and they flew out of the ring. I speak with my European colleagues, and they just shrug and say they feel as if a bucket of cold water has been poured over them. Their impression is very unpleasant because they were always in a warm bath. However, now they have awakened.

Everyone has already forgotten that not long ago, there was the Western European Union with a very well-defined and developed structure. It was the military arm of the European Union. Who is stopping us from creating this military-political union again today? We need to dust off some materials from the shelf and not invent anything because everything is already there.

One can quickly orient themselves with the list of invitees. Probably, it is not worth inviting Viktor Orban and Robert Fico to such a union, but Ukraine should be there. If we are not allowed into NATO — the United States and Germany do not want that — then we need to propose creating a European analogue of NATO, where Ukraine would join as a founding country and co-founder of this structure.

We need to look at the situation more creatively, actively work with our colleagues, and make decisions very quickly. I admire how swiftly French President Emmanuel Macron acts. The security conference in Munich ended on Sunday, and by Monday, he gathered the leaders of major European countries in Paris, and on Wednesday, he organized a meeting with other states supporting Ukraine. He understands that one cannot hesitate for too long when