Pressure on Ukraine Instead of Russia: What's Really Behind Trump's Actions and Where This Will Lead

Donald Trump’s statements about the war in Ukraine, which effectively place Kyiv and Moscow on an equal footing in terms of responsibility, may indicate an attempt by the White House to whitewash Russian crimes and force the victim of aggression to make concessions. At the same time, the joint activities of the Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Washington, promises of a major peace agreement, and talk of an energy truce raise questions about the true intentions of the U.S. administration. However, without real pressure on the Kremlin, any agreements can only give Russia time to prepare new attacks.

Kateryna Lisunova, a Ukrainian journalist and media advisor at Razom for Ukraine, explained to 24 Channel why the Trump administration is putting pressure specifically on Ukraine, how the White House meeting helps the Kremlin, and whether we should count on a new major agreement involving Europe. The journalist also assessed the prospects for an energy truce, explained why Russia has no interest in ending the war, and discussed how a Democratic victory in the midterm elections could change U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Why Is the White House Putting Pressure on Ukraine in Particular?

Trump was asked whether he had discussed Russian attacks on civilians in Ukraine with Putin’s envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, but instead he mentioned the deaths of civilians in Russia. What was your reaction to that response, and does it suggest that Trump considers Ukraine and Russia equally responsible for the war?

I think that at this stage, such statements – which we have heard repeatedly – are, in essence, an attempt to whitewash Russian crimes, horrific and inhumane Russian crimes. We’re talking about the rape of children and the murder of civilians – things that are too horrific to even mention.

And using this “both sides” narrative – the claim that both sides are to blame, that both sides are suffering and must stop – is, in essence, a narrative designed to whitewash Russian crimes.

It puts the victim and the aggressor on the same level, which is simply wrong. It’s not true. If we’re talking about information, if we’re dealing with pure facts. As you just pointed out, Ukrainians have never targeted Russian civilians, never attacked locations with Russian civilians. This is a plain fact, a well-known fact that is very easy to verify.

Ukrainian journalist on U.S. sentiment toward Trump’s policies: video

In today’s world, everything is literally captured on video; this is the most widely covered online war in human history. And it’s very easy to verify that this is simply inaccurate if we’re talking about facts. So I view such statements as a narrative designed to whitewash Russian crimes.

How was the meeting between the Ukrainian and Russian delegations at the White House received in Washington – specifically, the presence of sanctioned Russian officials and the warm welcome both sides received from Melania Trump? Could such an atmosphere foster new agreements between Ukraine and Russia?

What I mean is that even if there is hope for new agreements, the Russians will violate them immediately after they are signed. That’s the historical pattern. That’s why I think Ukrainians aren’t naive on this issue. The question is whether the Western world is still naive enough to trust the “Russian world.”

I would say that all the actions, all the actions, deeds, and statements we saw yesterday – and which we discussed – are part of this whitewashing of Russian crimes, placing the victim and the aggressor on equal footing – and this is exactly what we saw at the White House, particularly with Melania Trump.

By the way, Volodymyr Zelenskyy honored Melania Trump with the Order of Princess Olga, First Class for her significant contribution to rescuing deported Ukrainian children and organizing humanitarian aid. The award was presented to the First Lady of the United States at the White House by Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets. Thanks to the mediation of the U.S. president’s wife, it was also possible to secure a temporary ceasefire in Oleshky for the evacuation mission.

First and foremost, Ukrainians have no choice but to participate in this, because Ukraine needs American support. And the Americans are also the ones who have guaranteed this support. It’s not something Ukrainians are demanding out of thin air.

We are aware of the memorandum and many other promises that have, in fact, been made by the Americans. Therefore, Ukrainians’ expectations of American support and the support of Western allies are entirely justified. And they – the Ukrainians – literally need this, and they have no other choice.

So they need to participate in this event – in this, as you call it, political action that we’ve seen – but the narratives and statements – I’ll say it again – whitewash Russian crimes. The only question is this: this is the reality, and this is how we must view it – we must not normalize it. But the only question that arises from what we’ve seen is why – why is the administration pushing this agenda?

It may also be a result of the momentum they built during the congressional election campaign, when Donald Trump decided that this would be a great campaign – put pressure on Ukraine – and thus supposedly secure some victories and achieve certain political gains. There are many theories as to why this administration is acting this way; we don’t have a clear answer to that.

One theory is that the administration thought – and presumably still thinks – that putting pressure on Ukraine would be much easier than putting pressure on Russia. And that is precisely why, by simply pressuring the victim into surrendering – the Donald Trump administration – it might achieve some kind of political victory, ostensibly ending the war by crushing the victim and forcing Ukraine to capitulate.

But this also demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of this region – namely, that by putting pressure on Ukrainians, they will only resist even more fiercely. This is a historical fact, and it is, in essence, what many other countries would do; and this, I would say, is simply a misguided policy that we are witnessing.

How the White House meeting helps the Kremlin

Doesn’t the Ukrainian delegation’s participation in joint events with the Russians create the impression that Ukraine is ready to normalize relations with those who are killing its people? Doesn’t this contradict the international policy of putting pressure on Russia – specifically sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and restrictions in sports?

I mean, this clearly undermines all the efforts other allies are making to put pressure on Russia. The actions we’re seeing from the U.S. administration are undermining all the work that’s been done – and that work is already insufficient; much more needed to be done – and even these small steps are being undermined by such actions, and that, in essence, is the truth.

When it comes to Ukrainians sitting down at the negotiating table with the Russians, Ukrainians have sat across from the Russians many times. There have been many negotiations, and there have been many attempts by Ukrainians to resolve this diplomatically, to resolve this through negotiations, but the Russians are the only party in these negotiations that does not want to end this war, because Ukraine is not their ultimate goal. The restoration of the USSR is Putin’s ultimate goal, and acquiring new territories in Europe is Putin’s ultimate goal.

That is why Ukraine isn’t even the main reason for this war, and that is precisely why any negotiations – all the negotiations that the Ukrainians have conducted, including with the Europeans – have never resulted in any real agreement on Russia’s part.

Trump’s “Big Deal”: Why No One Believes It

After meeting with Kirill Dmitriev, Trump once again spoke of a grand bargain involving Ukraine, Russia, and Europe. How are these statements by the American president being interpreted in Washington, and what might he actually mean?

If we’re talking about promises of a grand bargain that will solve everything, then at the moment, the American public objectively views this more as a fable about the boy who cried “wolf.” We’ve heard this many times before.

We’ve heard plenty of claims that, by 2024, the war was supposed to end two days after Trump returned to office. Which didn’t happen. I think the biggest problem with all these promises – especially when Trump promises, well, to strike some kind of deal with the Europeans – is this:

This administration has one major flaw. They never think about the Russians. The Europeans will join any effort. Ukraine will join any effort, but Russia will be the one to break every promise.

So it doesn’t matter what you do among your allies, or how many people you bring into these efforts. There’s only one problem, and that’s Russia. And until the administration starts focusing on the real problem, the war won’t end. It will only escalate.

And over the past two years – unfortunately, during these two years of the Trump administration – more people have died than before, and there have been more casualties than during the war itself. These are the facts on the ground. And until the administration focuses on the real cause of this problem – its very essence – the problem will not be solved.

That’s one thing; another is that – I would say – any announcement of a new major deal involving the Europeans is viewed with greater suspicion by those who support Ukraine, because to them it always sounds like yet another attempt to pressure Ukraine and Europe, since over the past two years, Ukraine has relied heavily on its European allies after losing most of its support from the United States.

Why a Ceasefire Won’t Stop Russia

What do people in Washington think about an energy ceasefire, an energy truce between Ukraine and Russia? Is that even possible? I’ve heard a lot of ideas. Well, he just said in a recent interview that he doesn’t trust Putin. What a surprise, right? But anyway, yes.

So, essentially, he said that Putin won’t agree to anything until spring and will intensify attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, especially in December, January, and so on. What do people in Washington think after this so-called “diesel agreement,” which isn’t really an agreement with Russia at all?

That’s a complicated question, because people in Washington have different views. If we’re talking about Ukraine’s supporters, if we’re talking about the administration itself, then you just mentioned the diesel deal, which at the moment looks as though no port wants to accept Russian diesel, because it would impose many legal obligations on any American company that does business with them, since it contradicts laws that have already been passed.

At least three laws contradicted this decision by Donald Trump. At least one law definitely contains certain provisions that might allow it, but there is at least one law that unequivocally prohibits it.

Therefore, any company that receives this Russian diesel fuel will not be able to do anything with it, because it will be sued, and it will face many legal obligations and problems if it does so. That’s why most companies at this point have simply turned down those Russian ships carrying Russian diesel. That’s the first point.

It’s a different matter when we’re talking about an energy ceasefire. Oh, you asked me what Washington thinks about this. If we’re talking about the administration, it’s most likely considering this in terms of political gains.

So any ceasefire would look as if the administration had achieved it, brokered this deal, and it would bring certain political dividends to the Trump administration. At least, that’s how they see it. At least, that’s how they see it, based on what we’ve learned over the past two years.

So they would be willing to do whatever it takes to make this happen, but, first of all, as you just said, Russia certainly won’t stop attacking Ukraine until it feels it’s losing or has run out of strength. If they feel they have the upper hand, if they feel they’re being asked to do something, it means they’re in a position of greater influence.

That gives them more power – at least that’s how Putin’s psychology works. So as long as he feels he’s strong enough, he’ll continue this war. They definitely won’t stop.

Besides, even if they did stop, I don’t think that would be an ideal scenario for Ukraine, because they’ll simply rebuild everything – since that would mean Ukraine would stop too – and the Russians will repair everything that’s been damaged and simply resume new attacks with fresh forces and renewed energy – and that’s exactly what we should expect.

So even with this possibility – this possibility of a deal – we arrive at the same conclusion. As long as you don’t put pressure on Russia, you won’t achieve any goals. You won’t get any commitments from the Russians to do anything or keep any promises.

What the Kremlin Really Fears After the Democrats’ Victory

Europe also continues to purchase Russian gas, so it cannot be considered entirely innocent when it comes to energy cooperation with Moscow. At the same time, the Kremlin shows no concern over the Democrats’ victory in the U.S. and hopes for continuity in Trump’s policies. Isn’t Moscow underestimating the possible consequences of this election?

I mean, Moscow claims it is gaining more territory in Ukraine, even though in reality it has lost more than at any time since 2022. So that doesn’t mean this is the actual situation on the ground. Russia never tells the truth. There’s only one rule in diplomacy: Never trust the Russians. That’s the first point.

Second, if they publicly claim they’re not afraid of this at all, it means they’re probably afraid. That’s the first reason, because otherwise they wouldn’t make such a bold statement. That’s what they do – but in reality, they’re scared. They say they’re not afraid, and they say it loudly, very loudly, and publicly. That’s their standard policy.

Third, the political climate in the United States will definitely change. Objectively speaking, they can still rely on Donald Trump, and much of U.S. foreign policy is in the hands of the executive branch – that is, the administration.

Congress is more responsible for domestic measures, agreements, and policies, while foreign policy is largely in the hands of the president – historically, by law, and so on – since he is the head of the executive branch.

But exercising executive power will be much more difficult without congressional support, and I already know that the Democrats will take many steps to pressure this administration to provide more aid to Ukraine.

I am aware of the provision in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) regarding additional aid to Ukraine, and so far it looks promising. It looks good. There are ideas and proposals from leading Democrats to include additional aid for Ukraine in the NDAA, something that hasn’t happened in the past two years.

They also have another opportunity to put pressure on the administration. That’s the annual budget, which is also about to be passed – and which often leads to government shutdowns and the like. But this is yet another opportunity for Democrats to put pressure on this administration. That’s the first point.

Another thing is that there will be many investigations. The House of Representatives has the power to issue subpoenas. They can summon people and are indeed planning to call them to testify before committees, and we’re talking about Donald Trump’s inner circle.

We’re talking about corruption investigations. We’re talking about a possible impeachment process against Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, who is now being called the “Minister of War.” Yes. So these are the things we should expect starting in January, and they will significantly complicate any actions by this administration in support of Russia.

How the Democrats’ victory will change U.S. policy

Does a Democratic victory mean anything for Ukraine as a whole? I mean, could the new Congress make it harder for Trump to put pressure on Russia? That is, easing pressure on Russia or limiting military aid to Kyiv?

I mean, there are three things. First, there will be steps to provide greater support to Ukraine. That’s one aspect from the Democrats’ side.

Another point is that there will be significant pressure on Donald Trump from the Republican Party – from within the party – due to this major defeat, because he is the party leader who was supposed to lead them to greater power, greater achievements, greater goals, and so on – isn’t that right? – which he failed to do.

He didn’t achieve that, and that’s what Republicans will be thinking about in the near future – certainly over the next two years. There will also be pressure from Republican Party donors – the people who fund the party – due to the midterm election results.

And the last point I’ll make is, of course, that the outcome of the midterm elections is based on the economy, on prices – specifically gas prices – and many other factors. We must not underestimate the moral compass of Americans. Ukraine and the unfair treatment of Ukrainians played a role.

I spoke with people at polling stations as they were voting, and many of them said that attitudes toward Ukraine were one of the reasons why they are now voting for the Democrats, even though they voted for Trump in 2024. I’ve spoken with such people, and their moral compass also plays a role. Of course, it’s not as important as the economy and other issues.

But I wrote about this on my social media, and many Americans responded that it’s true. That’s what changed their minds. So we shouldn’t forget the fact that most Americans support Ukraine.

An even larger majority of Americans dislike Russia, and policies of rapprochement with Russia or putting pressure on Ukraine are unpopular in the United States. And we must understand that the voice of the American people matters and plays a role in the U.S. So this support for Ukrainians – and this aspect of it – will play a role.