On the eve of the talks in Abu Dhabi, Donald Trump spoke of a sweeping peace agreement that could affect not only Ukraine but all of Europe. At the same time, reports emerged about a possible resumption of dialogue between Russia and NATO, which raised concerns due to the Kremlin’s longstanding demands to revise the European security system.
Political strategist Mykhailo Sheitelman, in his column published by 24 Channel, analyzed the Trump team’s proposals and explained why he sees them as a threat to the U.S.’s Eastern European allies. He also assessed Europe’s reaction, the possibility of a new escalation against Iran, and the controversy surrounding Melania Trump’s humanitarian event involving Ukrainian and Russian representatives.
popular videos
Trump Spoke of a Major Deal Following Contact with the Kremlin
Donald Trump announced the possibility of a major peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, in which European states could be involved. The U.S. president suggested that future agreements would go far beyond a cessation of hostilities and address broader international issues.
Sheitelman linked the unexpected shift in the White House’s rhetoric to a personal meeting between Trump and Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. According to him, the Russian representative had not previously had such direct access to the U.S. president, but this time the meeting did take place.
The political strategist speculated that Stephen Miller, a member of Trump’s inner circle, may have been involved in organizing it. It was precisely after this contact that the U.S. president began speaking about future agreements on a much larger scale than before.
Among the possible economic projects that Sheitelman links to contacts between Washington and Moscow, he cited the construction of a tunnel between Alaska and Chukotka, cooperation with Elon Musk’s companies, and the development of the Arctic’s natural resources.
In his view, the promise of massive profits from joint projects could have piqued Trump’s interest. At the same time, the political strategist ironically described what a conversation about economic prospects and the Kremlin’s political demands might have looked like.
Trump met Kirill Dmitriev for the first time, and Dmitriev began talking about the tunnel between Alaska and Chukotka, Elon Musk’s companies, rare earth metals, and gold in the Arctic. He even promised huge profits from all these projects
In this hypothetical conversation, the Russian side offers the Americans economic opportunities while expecting political decisions regarding Ukraine and European security in return. Sheitelman suggested that this goes beyond Russia’s territorial claims to the Donbas.
He mentioned the Kremlin’s demands regarding the Baltic states, Finland, Sweden, and the U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe. It is precisely these issues, in his view, that could have been presented to Trump as part of a broader agreement.
And Putin isn’t asking for much in return. Donbas – that’s understandable. But also to exclude Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden from NATO. And to withdraw troops from Eastern Europe. Why do you need them there?
This is the political strategist’s speculation about the content of possible agreements, not a verbatim account of Trump’s negotiations with Dmitriev. However, shortly after reports of their contact emerged, information surfaced that, according to Sheitelman, sheds light on the broader strategy of the American side.
This refers to Jared Kushner’s initiative regarding a review of the framework of relations between Russia and NATO following the end of the war in Ukraine.
They want to link a peace agreement to a new European security system
According to Sheitelman, the Washington Post reported on Jared Kushner’s interest in reviving the Russia–NATO Council. This forum was established after the end of the Cold War to discuss security issues between Moscow and the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance.
Following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2014 and the occupation of Crimea, its work was effectively suspended. Now, according to a report cited by the political strategist, the Trump team is considering a return to multilateral dialogue.
The idea is to link the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine to further negotiations between Russia and European states regarding a post-war security framework. A peace agreement is proposed to be viewed as the first stage of a broader diplomatic process.
This is precisely what caused Scheitelman the greatest concern. He recalled that as far back as 2021, the Kremlin had made demands of the West that concerned not only Ukraine but also NATO’s presence in Central and Eastern Europe.
The Russian leadership demanded a de facto rollback of the Alliance’s military configuration to its 1997 state. For countries that joined NATO later, this could mean a significant reduction in the allies’ military presence on their territory.
Sheitelman fears that Washington’s current initiatives could create an opportunity to reintroduce these demands into the negotiation process under the guise of discussing long-term peace.
Kushner proposes: let’s rewind everything back to 1997. Let’s restore the Russia–NATO Council and resume gas trade. Everything Putin dreams of – bringing back the past
The resumption of the Russia–NATO Council does not in itself imply agreement to the Kremlin’s territorial or military demands. However, Sheitelman considers it dangerous to potentially bundle these issues into a single package of agreements.
In such a case, negotiations to end Russia’s war against Ukraine could escalate into discussions about the status of European states, the presence of U.S. troops, and relations with Moscow.
In particular, the political strategist mentioned Poland, the Baltic states, and countries that have recently joined NATO. Their security depends directly on the Alliance’s decisions, so the possibility of discussing such issues without the full participation of Europeans creates an additional problem.
According to Sheitelman, this is precisely why the upcoming talks in Abu Dhabi take on a much broader significance than a routine meeting of Ukrainian, Russian, and American representatives.
European countries do not want to be left out of the negotiations
Initially, the participation of European states in the Abu Dhabi talks remained uncertain. Sheitelman noted that Kremlin representatives had shown no willingness to allow them to join the discussions on future agreements.
In particular, when the Russian side was asked about the presence of Europeans, it effectively ruled out the possibility of their participation at the negotiating table. However, reports of broader initiatives by the Trump administration changed the nature of this discussion.
The political strategist pointed out a contradiction: if the subject of the talks is not only Russia’s war against Ukraine but also the future architecture of European security, the absence of European representatives appears particularly dangerous.
The Americans’ idea is: “Let’s divide up Europe in Abu Dhabi.” That’s exactly how this story looks. And suddenly it becomes clear why the Europeans want to be there, too
Following the publication of relevant reports, France announced its intention to be represented at the talks. Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barro, according to the political strategist, said that the French side plans to join the meeting, although no specific representative had been named at that time.
Sheitelman interpreted this reaction as a signal that European states do not intend to agree to discussions about their future without their own participation. Issues such as the U.S. military presence, a possible reassessment of relations with NATO, and the resumption of energy cooperation with Russia directly affect their interests.
However, the political strategist suggests that Trump may try to push through far-reaching agreements even in the face of resistance from allies. He attributes this to the U.S. president’s political position following the Republicans’ defeat in the congressional elections.
Trump has decided to go all in. Not to stop, but on the contrary – to run even faster so that they definitely won’t catch up with him. And I’m afraid we’ll have to deal with outright betrayal of Europe
At the same time, his prediction regarding possible concessions to the Kremlin does not mean that the relevant decisions have already been made. The negotiation process merely creates an opportunity to discuss proposals, the content and future fate of which remain uncertain.
Sheitelman believes that a change in Trump’s own political situation could now play an important role in countering agreements that are unacceptable to Europe.
European leaders are no longer afraid of Trump
During the 2024 presidential campaign, European politicians viewed the prospect of Donald Trump’s return to the White House with alarm. They understood that for the next four years, they would have to work with a U.S. leader who regularly criticized European allies and questioned previous U.S. approaches to international security.
After his victory, many European capitals tried to adapt to the new administration. Politicians sought ways to maintain working relationships with Washington and avoid open conflicts with the president.
Now the situation has changed. Following the Republicans’ defeat in the midterm elections, Trump has lost some of his political support, and his future initiatives may face significantly stiffer resistance in Congress.
Sheitelman believes that European leaders have already drawn their own conclusions from this. They no longer view the current U.S. president as a politician on whom the future of U.S.-European relations will inevitably depend.
Today, Trump is already a lame duck. So why dance to his tune? Europeans have seen that he has lost, and they sense that in two years, “Trumpism” itself may lose
In his view, European politicians are increasingly counting on a shift in Washington’s foreign policy course after Trump’s presidency ends. They hope that the next U.S. administration will return to closer cooperation with traditional allies.
Such a scenario is not guaranteed, but the very possibility of political change reduces Europeans’ willingness to agree to decisions they find undesirable right now.
Sheitelman is convinced that these circumstances also create additional opportunities for Ukraine. After all, European countries have a direct interest in ensuring that decisions on post-war security are not made without their participation.
“We already have many allies. There are democrats in America, and more importantly, Europeans who are no longer afraid. That is why I believe we have a good chance of turning this situation around,”
How events unfold will depend on exactly what proposals the American side brings to the negotiations and whether European states will be able to participate in their discussion.
However, the diplomatic activity surrounding Abu Dhabi is not the only international process that has caught the political strategist’s attention. He also suggested that peace talks could coincide with preparations for a new military escalation in the Middle East.
Negotiations may coincide with a new war against Iran
Alongside discussions of future agreements between Ukraine and Russia, Sheitelman drew attention to events in Israel and Saudi Arabia. He suggested that these could influence Donald Trump’s decision regarding a new military confrontation with Iran.
The first factor is the domestic political situation in Israel. According to information cited by the political strategist, the country’s president has tasked opposition politician Gadi Eizenkot with forming a government, rather than incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This mandate alone does not yet guarantee the formation of a new government. However, if a coalition is formed, Netanyahu could lose power, which poses serious political risks for him.
Sheitelman suggested that the Israeli prime minister might try to change the situation through an escalation in foreign policy. In particular, he did not rule out the possibility of a new military confrontation with Iran involving the United States.
Netanyahu now has an incentive to urgently start a war with Iran. Accordingly, he has an incentive to convince Trump to start this war once again, since the risk of losing power has increased for him
He noted that if Eisenkot succeeds, he will have a limited amount of time to form a coalition. If he manages to do so, Netanyahu’s political position could change.
Sheitelman cited reports of a Houthi strike on Riyadh as a second factor. According to him, a ballistic missile struck the headquarters of the Saudi oil company Aramco and damaged several floors.
The political strategist believes that Washington could use such an incident as a political argument in favor of a new military operation against Iran. He linked this to the support Tehran provides to the Houthis.
At the same time, Sheitelman considers another, far more plausible scenario: the diplomatic activity surrounding Abu Dhabi could serve as a way to divert attention from preparations for a possible attack.
There is a theory that Trump is actively pushing the narrative of negotiations in Abu Dhabi to show Iran: “We’re negotiating, so we’re not going to go to war.” Meanwhile, behind the scenes, he’s preparing an attack on Iran
Sheitelman himself called this scenario a conspiracy theory rather than a confirmed plan by the U.S. administration. At the same time, he believes that the domestic political problems facing Trump and Netanyahu could pose additional risks to international security.
For Ukraine, the negotiations in Abu Dhabi remain the main diplomatic issue. Their outcome could reveal whether Washington will attempt to link an end to the Russian war to a revision of broader agreements on European security.
The White House event divided opinions among Ukrainians
Sheitelman devoted a separate section of his review to the controversies surrounding Melania Trump’s humanitarian event. After initially criticizing the joint participation of Ukrainian and Russian representatives, he received numerous messages from viewers offering varying assessments of the event.
The main topic of discussion was the presence of Ukrainian politicians alongside Russian representatives during the official ceremony. Some people considered this unacceptable, while others emphasized that, in order to rescue civilians from captivity and occupation, one sometimes has to engage in unpleasant diplomatic interactions.
Sheitelman read a letter from a viewer named Yulia, who considered the humanitarian outcome more important than the ceremony’s appearance. In her opinion, Ukrainian representatives could not risk derailing the operation simply because they were unwilling to appear alongside Russians.
“Let them hug in front of the cameras and then cry behind closed doors, as long as they save everyone who is in captivity or under occupation,”
She also noted that Ukrainian representatives likely understood the political nature of the event in advance. However, the opportunity to help people remained their primary goal, so participating in the official ceremony may have been a necessary compromise.
Viewer Nadiya, whose partner had previously been held captive by Russia, expressed a completely different view. Drawing on her personal experience of waiting for a loved one’s release, she criticized the joint appearance of a high-ranking Ukrainian official with representatives of the aggressor state.
According to her, the Russian side agrees to humanitarian agreements not out of compassion for the victims, but only when it sees its own benefit in doing so.
His fortunate release happened not because the Russians are capable of mercy, but because it was in their interest at that particular moment. I know what I’m talking about, based on the real-life example of my partner and his comrades
Sheitelman noted that both women have their own arguments regarding the fates of people who were or remain under Russian control. At the same time, they differ in their assessment of whether joint public events with Russian representatives are acceptable.
That is precisely why the political strategist decided to present different viewpoints, rather than limit himself to letters only from those viewers who support his position.
The specific individuals the Russian side invited to the humanitarian ceremony sparked a particular reaction.
The Russian representative at the ceremony raised new questions
After discussing various perspectives on the event at the White House, Sheitelman focused on the activities of Russian politician Lantratova, who participated in the relevant contacts. He read a letter from a viewer named Tamara, who had gathered information about Lantratova’s previous political activities.
According to the information provided in the letter, even before the full-scale invasion, Lantratova had been spreading accusations against Ukraine, including materials about alleged crimes committed by Ukrainian military personnel. Such claims were used in the Russian political sphere to advance arguments about the need to protect the population of Donbas.
The viewer also mentioned allegations regarding Lantratova’s involvement in the removal of Ukrainian children to Russian territory. Sheitelman relayed this information from the letter he received without providing separate confirmation for each incident.
In addition, the report mentioned the politician’s dissemination of stories about alleged torture of civilians by Ukrainian military personnel in the Kursk region. The sanctions imposed against her by a number of countries were listed separately.
For Sheitelman, this information provided further grounds for a critical assessment of the Russian representative’s participation in humanitarian efforts. He noted that the public status of negotiators should not overshadow their prior political activities.
At the same time, the political strategist did not want to let grievances against individual Ukrainian politicians influence his assessment of the humanitarian mission itself. He illustrated this point with the example of David Arakhamia, who participated in an event hosted by Melania Trump.
During that same period, according to Sheitelman, reports were circulating about a criminal investigation into the possible bribery of members of parliament, in the context of which Arakhamia was mentioned. The political strategist emphasized that he did not want to mix this story with the discussion about the presence of a Ukrainian representative alongside the Russians.
“The criminal case is one thing; the story involving Melania Trump is another. I wanted to consider Arakhamia simply as a government official, without any other baggage, so that everything would be fair,”
According to him, it was precisely because of this distinction that he faced conflicting accusations from viewers. Some believed he was too harshly critical of the Ukrainian government, while others, on the contrary, criticized him for attempting to justify the actions of certain officials.
Sheitelman emphasized that evaluating a politician’s participation in a specific event should not automatically depend on one’s attitude toward all other aspects of his activities. However, at the end of his analysis, he drew attention to another statement linked to Arakhamia and the upcoming G20 summit.
The statement about the G20 and the Svitolina example intensified the controversy
Sheitelman discussed a message from a Telegram channel that a viewer had sent him. It quoted remarks attributed to David Arakhamia regarding the Ukrainian delegation’s possible participation in the G20 summit in December.
According to the widely circulated quote, the Ukrainian politician allegedly questioned the advisability of participating in the meeting if Russian representatives were not present. The message claimed that Russia’s presence was necessary for a substantive discussion of issues related to the war.
Sheitelman separately emphasized that he personally had not heard the original recording of the statement and did not rule out that the quoted remarks might have been taken out of context. At the same time, such a position – if reported correctly – puzzled him.
“Do we at the G20 have nothing better to do than talk to the Russians? We want to develop trade relations and the economy. Why would we need to persuade the Americans to bring the Russians to the G20? I don’t understand this,”
He noted that the G20 summit is a platform for cooperation among the world’s leading economies, so Ukraine may have many other issues to discuss with its participants. According to the political strategist, the presence of Russian representatives should not be a prerequisite for dialogue with other countries.
He concluded the discussion about joint photos of Ukrainian and Russian representatives with a story from the world of sports that another viewer had sent him.
According to her, during preparations for the 2026 women’s tennis finals, the organizers changed the traditional format of the group photo session for the eight participants. Instead of a group photo, the athletes were photographed individually.
The viewer linked this to the stance of Ukrainian tennis player Elina Svitolina, who, according to her, refused to be photographed alongside Russian player Mirra Andreeva and Belarusian player Arina Sobolenko.
The letter emphasized that the athlete risked facing criticism for breaking a long-standing tournament tradition, yet she still refused to pose for a group photo.
Our athlete had the courage to break a long-standing tradition and face a wave of criticism, even though sports are supposedly apolitical. But it turns out our politicians didn’t have enough courage
Sheitelman cited this example as another perspective on the controversy surrounding the event at the White House. For some Ukrainians, the outcome of humanitarian agreements remains more important; for others, it is a matter of principle to reject public gestures that might give the impression of normalizing relations with representatives of the aggressor state.
Both positions, according to his observations, have supporters among people who have directly experienced the consequences of Russian aggression. Therefore, the assessment of such diplomatic contacts remains the subject of heated public debate, even when it comes to humanitarian outcomes.
Mykhailo Sheitelman on Trump’s new deal: watch the video
If you find an error on this page, select it and press Ctrl + Enter