Putin Wants to Negotiate a Deal on Ukraine Without Ukraine: Who Really Stands to Gain from the Summit with Trump and Xi

Vladimir Putin is promoting the idea of a trilateral meeting with Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, at which they could discuss ending the war without Ukraine’s participation. At the same time, Washington is considering new economic concessions to Russia, even as the Russian army continues to attack Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure.

Political strategist Mykhailo Sheitelman, in his author’s review – which is also published on 24 Channel’s YouTube channel – analyzed the American press’s reaction to Trump’s policies and his administration’s controversial proposals. He explained why a possible summit of the three leaders could strengthen China’s position, and why demands for territorial concessions find no support among Ukrainians.

Trump Faces Criticism in the U.S.

Following the latest Russian strikes on Kyiv, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Donald Trump finds it distressing to see the consequences of ballistic missiles striking residential buildings. These remarks drew a sharp response from Sheitelman, who pointed out that the U.S. president is speaking about his own emotions, while Ukrainians face destruction and loss of life on a daily basis.

The political strategist ironically addressed Trump with an apology on behalf of the capital’s residents. He mentioned Russian strikes on the Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital, schools, shopping centers, and other civilian targets, the consequences of which cannot be hidden from the world.

Dear Donald Trump, as a resident of Kyiv, I apologize for the inconvenience and emotional distress you are forced to endure because of us. We’ll try not to show these images anymore, to hide them, and not to say that these were residential buildings. We’ll say that they were supposedly military facilities,
” Sheitelman said ironically.

At the same time, the reaction from the American press itself could be truly unpleasant for Trump. Of particular significance are articles in conservative publications, which traditionally do not count among his fiercest media opponents.

In particular, Sheitelman drew attention to articles in the New York Post and the Washington Times devoted to sanctions against Russia and U.S. energy policy. These articles criticized economic concessions to the Kremlin that could bring additional revenue to the Russian budget.

American journalists contrasted Ukrainian strikes on military targets and fuel infrastructure with Russian attacks on the civilian population. They also questioned the idea of easing sanctions for the sake of negotiations, since Putin could use the funds to continue the war.

You understand, this isn’t Zelenskyy speaking. These are American Republican journalists writing that the United States is aiding a war machine that kills one-year-old children. And they say outright that there is no logical justification for this,
– the political strategist emphasized.

The articles also noted that support for Kyiv weakens Russia as one of China’s international partners. Sheitelman considers such criticism particularly important on the eve of the U.S. midterm congressional elections, as the stance of conservative media can influence Republican voters’ attitudes toward White House policy.

Trump’s Double Standards

Sheitelman cited the U.S. president’s address to the citizens of Israel as another example of his contradictory policies. Trump expressed support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and linked continued assistance to Israel in its confrontation with Iran to the political future of the current head of government.

In his address, he praised Netanyahu’s actions and presented him as an important partner of the United States. The political strategist compared this approach to the U.S. administration’s demands on the Ukrainian leadership, which Trump regularly criticizes for refusing to make concessions to Russia.

In Israel, he wants his friend Netanyahu to be elected. If there’s another prime minister, then, he says, you’ll have to deal with Iran on your own. This is how Trump understands democracy: we helped you, so now you must elect whoever I say,
” Sheitelman noted.

Separately, he mentioned a statement attributed to Netanyahu regarding a reduction in anti-Israel activity online following Ukrainian strikes on Yandex facilities. According to the political strategist, this activity had decreased by approximately 60%.

Sheitelman attributes this to the activities of Russian bot networks, which, in his opinion, are used to spread anti-Israeli sentiment and stir up conflict in other countries. At the same time, the cited figure and the direct link between the strikes on “Yandex” and bot activity require separate confirmation.

Strikes on St. Petersburg

Ukrainian drones continue to attack targets on Russian territory. Following the latest raid on St. Petersburg, local residents reported intense air defense activity, internet outages, and problems with the warning system.

One of Sheitelman’s contributors said that the sirens did not go off during the attack, even though local authorities had tested the warning system shortly before. At the same time, it is impossible to determine the exact number of drones or the extent of the damage based on eyewitness accounts.

Outraged questions also emerged in the Russian media asking why Ukrainian drones were targeting St. Petersburg specifically. A political strategist highlighted the city’s importance to the Russian economy and to sustaining the war against Ukraine.

Why Leningrad, of all places? Perhaps because it’s a port? Because oil and diesel are exported through it? Because it’s home to data centers, oil depots, warehouses, a military academy, and the fleet is based in Kronstadt? Perhaps because Russia attacked Ukraine?
– Sheitelman replied.

Meanwhile, Russian strikes continue to destroy the infrastructure of the Ukrainian capital. One of the most recent ballistic missile attacks damaged an above-ground section of the metro near the “Chernihivska” station, leading to service restrictions on the subway and the need to organize alternative passenger transportation.

The Russians attacked Kyiv with two waves of ballistic missiles. The Ukrainian side did not receive the necessary warning from the U.S. before the first wave, whereas the relevant information was received before the second.

Marco Rubio had previously attributed the problems with intelligence sharing to a software glitch. However, the recurrence of such situations is cause for concern, as the flight time for ballistic missiles to reach Kyiv can be as short as a few minutes, and a timely warning gives people the opportunity to reach shelter.

Patriot and Pressure on Ukraine

Volodymyr Zelenskyy reported that after Donald Trump announced an energy ceasefire, Russian troops continued to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. According to the president’s figures, there were 76 such attacks during this period, and damage to substations left tens of thousands of families without electricity.

In just one week – which was supposed to be a period of reduced shelling – Russia, according to Zelenskyy, deployed approximately 2,700 drones, 1,700 guided aerial bombs, and 66 missiles. Sheitelman pointed out the disconnect between statements about negotiations and the actual actions of the Russian military.

The shortage of Patriot interceptor missiles creates additional difficulties for Ukraine. In an interview with Bloomberg, Zelenskyy cited data showing that during Joe Biden’s presidency, Ukraine received 48 such missiles per month, while under the Trump administration, that number dropped to 12.

If we assume that two interceptors are needed per ballistic target, this batch would be sufficient for only six attempts to shoot down a target. Some of the missiles are provided to Ukraine by European partners, but limited stockpiles make it difficult to defend against massive strikes.

The disagreements between Kyiv and Washington do not end there. The U.S. administration is demanding that Ukraine limit its attacks on Russian oil infrastructure, citing the impact of such strikes on global diesel prices.

Zelenskyy proposed an agreement under which Ukraine would refrain from striking Russian diesel facilities in exchange for the supply of a sufficient number of Patriot missiles. According to the president, the Americans have approved only part of the necessary military aid, while the rest of the deliveries have not been approved.

Sheitelman believes that this position creates unfair conditions for Ukraine. Kyiv is being asked to limit strikes on Russian facilities that support the war, without being guaranteed sufficient protection against ballistic missiles in return.

Zelenskyy also told Bloomberg that certain actions by partners could effectively push Ukraine toward surrender. At the same time, he clarified that he does not want to assume that forcing concessions is a deliberate goal of the U.S. administration.

“I don’t want to think that they’re counting on ending the war sooner at Ukraine’s expense. But that’s how it turns out. In fact, that’s how it turns out,”
– Sheitelman quoted Zelenskyy as saying.

At the same time, the Ukrainian president continues to maintain diplomatic contacts with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The political strategist views the Bloomberg interview as an attempt to convey to the American audience the consequences of Washington’s decisions without abandoning the negotiation process.

Trump, for his part, stated that he does not want to push Russia away from the negotiations and once again criticized the Ukrainian strikes on oil refineries. He also commented on the support Moscow provides to Iran, downplaying its scale compared to what Russia is potentially capable of.

Sheitelman pointed out the contradiction in these explanations: Washington acknowledges Russia’s cooperation with a U.S. adversary, but at the same time tries to avoid decisions that could worsen relations with the Kremlin.

Russian Gas in Exchange for Peace

The Trump administration also considered the possibility of resuming large-scale Russian gas supplies to Europe. According to The New York Times, officials in Washington discussed this scenario with European partners as one of the economic incentives for ending the war.

Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner raised the idea during a meeting with national security advisers from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. The proposal involved the potential resumption of use of the gas pipelines through which Russian gas had previously been supplied to Europe.

Moscow would receive additional revenue from energy exports, while Ukraine could earn money from transit fees. However, according to reports, European officials reacted negatively to this idea, as it contradicts the EU’s efforts to reduce its energy dependence on Russia.

Sheitelman criticized the very principle of returning to the pre-war system of energy relations. After all, gas trade did not prevent the Kremlin from launching a full-scale invasion, and afterward, Moscow used energy resources to exert political pressure on Europe.

They’re suggesting we go back to the way things were before the war. Russia supplied gas to Europe and made a fortune. And what did it do? It started a war. And now they’re suggesting we restore that very same system and telling us that peace will follow,
– the political strategist exclaimed indignantly.

At the same time, various explanations for Russia’s economic concessions are being voiced within the U.S. administration itself. The U.S. Secretary of Energy, whom Sheitelman quoted, presented the easing of restrictions on diesel as a possible incentive for Moscow to reach an agreement with Ukraine.

According to this line of reasoning, in order to increase its fuel exports, Russia needs to restore its damaged oil refining capacity. And the cessation of Ukrainian strikes against those facilities would have to be the subject of separate agreements.

This is the kind of approach that would be worth discussing. Let Russia negotiate with Ukraine on its own if it wants to produce and sell diesel. These are economic incentives, not a way to force Ukraine to capitulate,
– Sheitelman explained.

The final terms of any potential energy agreements remain unknown. However, the political strategist insists that economic benefits for Russia should not be granted until there is a genuine cessation of its aggression.

A Summit Beneficial to China

According to The Wall Street Journal, Vladimir Putin proposed to Donald Trump that they hold a trilateral meeting with Xi Jinping to discuss ending the war against Ukraine. The idea, according to the publication, was raised during a phone call between the American and Russian presidents on October 9.

China was mentioned as a possible venue for the talks, with November cited as the timeframe. However, no final agreement was reached, and the U.S. side did not confirm that Trump had already agreed to such a format.

Initially, Sheitelman viewed reports of the summit as an attempt by the Kremlin to boost Putin’s international standing. However, following statements by Marco Rubio, who confirmed that such a possibility had been discussed, the expert began to take the prospect of a meeting more seriously.

He sees the greatest risk in the fact that trilateral talks on Chinese soil could strengthen Xi Jinping’s international role. Beijing would gain the opportunity to position itself as a central player in discussions about Europe’s security and future.

Imagine Putin, Xi Jinping, and Trump meeting. It would be immediately clear who’s in charge. Xi is the host; everything revolves around him. It turns out that Trump wouldn’t just be handing Ukraine over to the Russians. He’d be handing America over to the Chinese,
– Sheitelman argues.

Sheitelman compared this possible format to the meetings of Allied leaders in Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam during World War II. However, in his view, the current situation is fundamentally different, since Russia has failed to achieve its main military objectives in Ukraine, and the U.S. administration is also facing difficulties in the Middle East.

“They have forgotten the main principle: first win the war, and then meet to determine the future of the world. But Putin wants territories handed over to him without a victory, sanctions lifted without a victory, and his terms accepted without a victory,”
– the political strategist emphasized.

However, even a joint statement by the three leaders will not guarantee the implementation of agreements regarding Ukraine. Kyiv and European nations have their own positions, and Beijing is not necessarily interested in recognizing Putin as an equal partner in the distribution of global influence.

Putin does not want to back down

In any potential negotiations, one of the most difficult issues will remain Russia’s territorial claims. Sheitelman drew attention to Putin’s statement regarding his unwillingness to discuss the so-called “security zone” that the occupiers are seeking to establish on Ukrainian territory.

In addition to its claims on the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, the Kremlin is attempting to hold onto the seized areas of the Kharkiv and Sumy regions. The Russian leadership presents these as territories necessary for the defense of its own borders.

Sheitelman suggests that one possible negotiation scenario involved transferring the unoccupied part of the Donetsk region to Russia in exchange for the withdrawal of Russian troops from certain border areas.

“You hand over the Donetsk region to the Russians – specifically the territories they were unable to capture – and they’ll return small sections of the Kharkiv and Sumy regions to you. But Putin is now saying outright that he has no intention of even discussing this. He doesn’t want to back down at all,”
Sheitelman explained.

At the same time, the Kremlin’s unwillingness to cede the occupied territories significantly complicates attempts to find a compromise.

For Ukraine, such an approach would mean having to give up important defensive positions without clear guarantees that Russia will cease its aggression. Sheitelman considers a scenario in which territorial concessions are not accompanied by reliable security mechanisms to be particularly dangerous.

Ukrainians Oppose Surrendering the Donbas

Proponents of territorial concessions sometimes compare Ukraine to Finland, which was forced to cede part of its territory after the war with the Soviet Union. However, Sheitelman considers this historical analogy inaccurate due to a significant difference in the military situation.

Finland agreed to make concessions under the immediate threat of losing its statehood after Soviet troops broke through its defensive lines. A similar danger existed for Ukraine at the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022, when Russian troops were stationed near Kyiv.

Today, according to the political strategist, there is no basis for applying the same logic. Russia failed to capture the entire Donetsk region, so he considers demands to voluntarily hand over unoccupied territories to Russia unacceptable.

The Russians did not break through the front lines. Why should we agree to hand over territories to them that they were unable to capture? And most importantly, we have no guarantees. We’ll hand them over today, and tomorrow they’ll attack again. Who can believe that this won’t happen?
– Sheitelman emphasized.

Public sentiment also indicates a lack of support for such a scenario among the majority of Ukrainians. According to the results of a KMIS poll cited by the political strategist, 61% of respondents consider the transfer of Donbas to Russia in exchange for ending the war to be unacceptable.

In January, he said, that figure stood at 52%.

Sheitelman believes that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is forced to take these sentiments into account during negotiations with partners. A political decision to cede territories in the absence of public support would create additional internal risks for Ukraine.

Full interview: watch the video