Trump May "Twist Ukraine's Arm": Fedorov on Putin's Plan and the Chaos in Washington

Following yet another missile strike on Kyiv, which killed a 21-year-old woman, the Ukrainian side again reported that it had received no warning from the United States regarding the ballistic attack. At the same time, reports emerged of a possible meeting between Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping, at which they might discuss ending the war without Ukraine’s participation.

Military and political expert Yuriy Fedorov explained on 24 Channel why there may be disagreements within the U.S. leadership regarding support for Kyiv and what role China could play at a potential summit. He also suggested that Trump would try to extract concessions from Ukraine to demonstrate a foreign policy success following setbacks in the Middle East.

Ballistic Missile Warning

Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Air Force spokesperson Yuriy Ignat reported that Ukraine did not receive the necessary warning from its American partners prior to the latest ballistic missile attack. Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio attributed similar issues to a software glitch and denied that Washington had intentionally halted the sharing of intelligence.

At the same time, the exchange of information encompasses much more than just reports of missile launches. U.S. intelligence agencies share various types of intelligence, the exact list of which is classified, making it impossible to determine the extent of the current cooperation.

Data on ballistic missile launches and their flight paths are of particular importance to Ukraine. They allow for the advance identification of the likely strike area and the issuance of air raid alerts where the threat is greatest.

The flight time of ballistic missiles is very short. In the case of Kyiv and “Iskander” missiles, it could be one or two minutes. During that time, some people will manage to reach shelter, while others will not. But people must at least have the opportunity to save themselves,
– Fedorov explained.

Zelenskyy had previously announced the resumption of the exchange of relevant information; however, following the latest attack, reports of a lack of warning resurfaced. The reasons for such disruptions remain unclear, and explanations citing technical malfunctions do not address whether similar situations could recur.

Fedorov suggests that the problem may be linked not only to the functioning of the relevant systems but also to internal disagreements within the U.S. administration. Different groups of officials may assess the need for continued support for Ukraine and the acceptability of concessions to the Kremlin in different ways.

In my view, there is no clear position in Washington on how to proceed in this area: what to provide to Ukraine and what not to. Apparently, different groups, particularly within Donald Trump’s inner circle, hold differing views. It’s likely that Trump himself doesn’t really understand what to do next or how to proceed,
the military and political expert suggested.

Fedorov considers Marco Rubio to be one of the most influential members of the administration. In his view, the secretary of state belongs to a group of officials who are not interested in weakening Ukraine for the sake of agreements with Russia.

According to the expert, part of the U.S. government apparatus and military leadership also shares this position. This creates an additional counterbalance to politicians who advocate for a quick resolution of the war through concessions to Moscow.

A significant portion of the U.S. government and the senior military leadership opposes attempts to appease Russia. They believe it is necessary to establish serious means of deterring Russian aggression and not to deviate from the strategic position the U.S. has maintained since 1946,
Fedorov noted.

The midterm elections to the U.S. Congress are creating additional uncertainty. Fedorov speculates that the Republicans may suffer a defeat, and Trump will have to focus on preserving his own political influence before the new Congress convenes on January 3.

In such a scenario, the U.S. president may devote more attention to domestic policy than to large-scale international initiatives.

The Putin, Trump, and Xi Summit

According to The Wall Street Journal, Vladimir Putin proposed to Donald Trump that they hold a trilateral meeting with Xi Jinping without the participation of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Kremlin may try to use this format to advance its own vision for ending the war, counting on agreements among the world’s major players.

Fedorov does not rule out the possibility of such a summit. In his view, the Russian dictator would hardly have made such a proposal without at least a preliminary understanding of the Chinese leadership’s position.

It is unlikely that Putin would have proposed such an option to Trump if he had not reached a fundamental agreement with Xi Jinping. He would not have risked speaking on behalf of the Chinese leadership without Beijing’s consent,
Fedorov believes.

The expert cited November 17–18 as a possible timeframe for the meeting, linking these dates to international events in China. However, Trump’s participation and the final format of the talks remain uncertain, particularly due to the domestic political situation in the U.S.

Even if Beijing agrees to a trilateral meeting, this would not imply support for Russia’s demands. China could use the talks to strengthen its own diplomatic role, since Moscow’s and Beijing’s interests regarding the war do not fully align.

What is the danger here for Putin? Xi Jinping may agree to such a meeting, understanding that he will play the leading role – that of an arbitrator between Putin and Trump. And then the Chinese leader will have to publicly state his position and find a way to implement it,
– explained the military-political expert.

Fedorov distinguishes between the Chinese leadership’s actual interests and its official diplomatic statements. In his view, Beijing gains additional leverage over Russia, the U.S., and, to some extent, Europe while the war continues, but at the same time, it has an interest in preventing a dangerous escalation, particularly the use of nuclear weapons.

China’s official position is set forth in the 2023 peace plan. The document contains provisions on respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, the cessation of hostilities, the start of negotiations, the reduction of nuclear risks, and the resumption of grain shipments through the Black Sea.

For Moscow, these principles conflict with its demands to consolidate the occupation of Ukrainian territories and limit Ukraine’s independence. At the same time, Beijing continues to refer to its own peace document and shows no willingness to officially renounce its provisions.

Chinese diplomats consistently state that they are proceeding precisely on the basis of this plan. China has no reason to abandon it. Xi Jinping will, one way or another, reiterate the core principles, but for Russia, they are currently of little use and contradict the Kremlin’s actual position, which is unwilling to end the war,
– Fedorov emphasized.

The expert interprets the provision on territorial integrity as an argument in favor of restoring Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders of 1991. At the same time, the Chinese plan itself does not explicitly establish a mechanism for the return of the occupied territories, so Beijing’s general diplomatic principles do not imply automatic support for all of Ukraine’s demands.

A potential meeting also holds political significance for Putin. Participating in negotiations alongside the leaders of the U.S. and China would allow him to present himself as one of the key players in resolving global issues, as well as to demonstrate support for Trump during a difficult domestic political period for the latter.

Putin’s proposal is an attempt to help Trump amid a domestic political crisis while simultaneously demonstrating his own importance. As if to say, “Look, I’m sitting alongside two of the world’s leading leaders and solving global problems.” This is very flattering to Putin,
the expert noted.

However, even an agreement among the three countries would not guarantee an end to hostilities. Volodymyr Zelenskyy has already demonstrated his unwillingness to accept conditions imposed on Ukraine, and European countries have their own stance on the continent’s future security.

Without Ukraine, any talk of a peaceful settlement is completely pointless. Zelenskyy has made it quite clear that he has no intention of being led by the nose by the United States. And it is also impossible to resolve the issue of ending the war without Europe, because so much depends on its position,
– Fedorov emphasized.

European partners continue to play an important role in providing military and financial support to Ukraine. Therefore, even a high-profile trilateral summit cannot replace the need to negotiate with Kyiv and take into account the positions of the countries on which the implementation of any decisions will depend.

Trump’s Pressure on Ukraine

Donald Trump is seeking to achieve a notable result in international politics that could strengthen his standing among American voters. Fedorov links this to the consequences of the military campaign against Iran and Washington’s difficulties in the Middle East.

In his view, the U.S. and Israel inflicted significant losses on Iran, particularly in terms of military infrastructure and leadership. However, the expert considers Trump’s decision to halt hostilities in early April – when the campaign could still have continued – to be a mistake.

Trump could have claimed victory, but he proved incapable of winning this war. Instead of continuing the fighting, he halted it in the hope of reaching an agreement. The Iranian leadership viewed this as a sign of weakness,
Fedorov argues.

Unlike the situation in the Middle East, ending the Russian-Ukrainian war could be a politically significant achievement for Trump. However, the Kremlin shows no willingness to back down from its demands, and this significantly complicates the possibility of a quick agreement.

Trump needs a success. And the only success he sees right now is ending the war in Ukraine. But Putin has no intention of ending the war, and Washington understands this perfectly well,
– explained a military and political expert.

The U.S. administration has far greater leverage to influence Kyiv through military and political support than it does to force Russia to voluntarily abandon its plans. Fedorov suggests that this very difference may determine the White House’s future tactics.

That leaves the option of trying to twist Ukraine’s arm – as the weaker party in the conflict – and force it to accept Russia’s terms. But Ukraine has proven to have a fairly tough and principled leadership that has said: No, we won’t go along with that,
” Fedorov emphasized.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to defend Ukraine’s position, relying in particular on the support of European nations. As a result, political pressure from Washington has not yet secured Kyiv’s agreement to Russia’s terms for ending the war.

The expert cites a complete halt to U.S. aid to Ukraine as one of the harshest possible decisions Trump could make. However, such a move could have serious domestic political consequences, as support for the Ukrainians remains strong among a significant portion of American society.

Trump might take very drastic measures, such as declaring that the United States will no longer provide any aid to Ukraine at all. But 60 to 70 percent of American respondents support Ukraine, not Russia. If he takes such a step, his approval rating could drop even further,
the military and political expert suggested.

A possible reduction in military aid would not necessarily lead Trump to his desired political outcome. Ukraine continues to count on European support, while the U.S. president himself will have to take into account the reaction of his own voters to further decisions regarding the war.

Trump wants to twist Ukraine’s arm for his own success: watch the video