The Kremlin Is No Longer Satisfied with Trump's Concessions: Tsymbalyuk Explained What Russia Might Demand After Donbas

The U.S. continues to urge Ukraine to agree to a peace deal that could involve territorial concessions to Russia. At the same time, problems are arising with U.S. warnings about missile attacks, and Kremlin officials are speaking more and more openly about the immutability of their demands and a possible weakening of Donald Trump’s position.

In his YouTube analysis for 24 Channel, journalist Roman Tsymbalyuk examined why concessions will not make Russia abandon its original war aims. He also explained how disruptions in intelligence data are affecting Ukraine’s air defense, why Moscow is threatening Europe with nuclear weapons, and what lies behind Russian politicians’ sharp criticism of Trump.

U.S. Intelligence and Pressure on Kyiv

The U.S. early-warning system for missile attacks plays a crucial role in protecting Ukraine from Russian ballistic missiles. The U.S. satellite constellation detects missile launches while they are still over Russian territory, and the data collected is used to determine their flight path and prepare for interception.

For operational-tactical ballistic missiles, the flight time can be as short as five to seven minutes. Ukrainian air defense crews must have time to bring their equipment to combat readiness, verify its operation, detect the target, and deploy the appropriate weapons.

The situation becomes particularly challenging due to the limited number of missiles available for the Patriot systems. Even the timely detection of an aerial target does not guarantee its destruction if the unit lacks the necessary ammunition.

This information is critically important. In five to seven minutes, it is possible to bring air defense systems to combat readiness, conduct a functional check, go live, detect a ballistic target, and shoot it down. That is, of course, assuming there is a Patriot system available, because that, too, is a major question mark,
– explained Tsymbaliuk.

Recently, Ukraine has faced a lack of necessary U.S. warnings about missile launches. Officials in Washington denied intentionally limiting intelligence support and attributed the problems to technical malfunctions, but the journalist cast doubt on those explanations.

The problems with the warnings coincided with active attempts by the White House to pressure Kyiv into making concessions in negotiations with Moscow. The New York Times reported that representatives of the U.S. administration are urging Ukraine to agree to a potential deal, promising certain economic benefits.

At the same time, the terms of such an agreement could largely align with Russian demands. U.S. officials view the war as having reached a turning point and expect Volodymyr Zelenskyy to demonstrate a willingness to compromise, particularly regarding Ukrainian territories.

Trump’s aides insist that the war is now at a turning point. The next move, they say, is up to Zelenskyy. He must prove to the White House that he is ready to strike a deal with Moscow, even if it means ceding sovereign territory. But why would Donald Trump, who may soon lose a significant portion of his political influence, want this?
– the journalist noted, analyzing a New York Times article.

At the same time, the Ukrainian leadership is trying to influence Washington’s position through American public opinion. According to Tsymbaliuk, Zelenskyy gave more than ten interviews to American media outlets in the span of a week, explaining the consequences of a possible deal on Russia’s terms.

Trump’s position does not enjoy unanimous support even among Republicans. The journalist mentioned House Speaker Mike Johnson and approximately 40 influential party members who, in his assessment, also oppose attempts to bring about a quick end to the war through unilateral concessions by Ukraine.

The domestic political situation in the U.S. could significantly influence the White House’s future decisions. Tsymbaliuk suggests that after the midterm congressional elections, the U.S. president’s ability to advance his own initiatives may be limited, which is why the administration is trying to accelerate the negotiation process.

Guarantees Without NATO

One of the key issues in a potential peace settlement remains Ukraine’s future security. Volodymyr Zelenskyy has indicated a willingness to consider options under which the country would not join NATO but would instead receive other effective security guarantees.

Russia has long used the issue of Ukraine’s NATO membership to justify its aggression. However, refusing to join NATO does not in itself eliminate the threat of a new attack, so Kyiv needs to understand exactly who will guarantee its security and how its partners will act in the event of a renewed invasion.

Among the possible solutions being discussed are commitments by European states that, in substance, could resemble Articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. At the same time, agreements outside of NATO would not mean that the Alliance’s collective defense mechanism would automatically extend to Ukraine.

The key security guarantee is the Ukrainian army. But if not NATO, then what? There are proposals for guarantees from European countries on par with Articles 4 and 5 of the NATO Treaty, particularly Article 5. However, if it’s not the Alliance itself, it’s far from certain that they’ll work,
– emphasized Tsymbaliuk.

The technological component of future agreements is of particular importance. After all, even a powerful Ukrainian army needs timely information about missile threats, and the current situation has demonstrated just how significant disruptions in the operation of U.S. systems can be.

The U.S. satellite constellation detects the mere fact of a ballistic missile launch. After that, based on several observations, its trajectory, estimated time of arrival, and possible impact area of the warhead are determined.

If such information arrives too late, Ukrainian air defense forces have significantly fewer opportunities to prepare to repel the attack. Given the short flight time of ballistic missiles, even a delay of just a few minutes can render the warning practically useless.

This also raises questions about the future dependence of European security on American military technology. If the U.S. retains key capabilities for early missile detection, its political stance will influence the effectiveness of its partners’ defenses even if they possess their own weapons.

Nuclear Blackmail Against Europe

Russian propaganda is already exploiting the early-warning issue to intimidate European nations. Military analyst Mykhailo Khodaryonok stated on Russian television that France and the United Kingdom allegedly lack fully functional systems capable of independently detecting missile launches.

This refers to a comprehensive missile attack warning system that combines satellite surveillance and ground-based radar stations. Khodaryonok presented the possession of such capabilities as a hallmark of a major nuclear power, stating that only the United States and Russia fully possess them.

“If we strike France, Paris won’t even know about it. They don’t have a missile attack warning system. Only the United States and the Russian Federation possess fully-fledged systems with satellite-based and ground-based stations,”
– Khodaryonok said.

Russian media also mentioned China and India, which are developing their own capabilities for the early detection of missile threats. Propagandists also portrayed India as an important buyer of Russian energy resources, attempting to present Moscow’s relations with the largest Asian powers as proof of its international influence.

Tsymbaliuk mocked the attempt to downplay the nuclear capabilities of France and the United Kingdom. Possessing one’s own nuclear arsenal and the ability to receive timely information about a missile attack are distinct components of defense; therefore, the absence of certain technological components does not make European nuclear weapons safe for Russia.

The journalist noted that in the event of a nuclear strike on Moscow, its consequences would not depend on which specific country launched the retaliatory strike. Russian threats also fail to take into account that Ukraine has already demonstrated its ability to strike targets at significant distances using drones.

At the same time, Khodaryonok’s statement raises a real problem: the dependence of European allies on American early-warning systems. This issue is particularly acute given that Washington itself has been inconsistent in sharing relevant information with Ukraine.

Tsymbaliuk separately emphasized that the Starlink and Starshield satellite communication systems do not perform the functions of the U.S. missile attack warning system. These are different technologies, so communication capabilities for military units cannot be equated with the detection of ballistic missile launches.

These words are already on the minds of all European generals. They are asking themselves: what if we were in Ukraine’s place? And now all these technological solutions will definitely be developed independently of the United States – even after Donald Trump,
– the journalist believes.

The gradual development of their own surveillance systems could become one of the directions for European defense. At the same time, Tsymbaliuk suggests that even after Trump’s presidency ends, European countries will not want to return to their previous level of technological dependence on Washington.

Similar questions are raised by the possibility of a trilateral meeting between Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping. The journalist noted that the U.S. president might agree to negotiations in China, while Beijing is in no hurry to fully endorse the idea.

In his view, the Chinese leadership fully understands Russia’s actual military and economic capabilities and sees no need to rush into a decision that could elevate Putin’s international standing. For Europeans, the very prospect of such agreements only heightens concerns about the future role of the U.S. in the security architecture.

The Kremlin Is Not Backing Down from Its Goals

Despite diplomatic contacts and Washington’s attempts to bring the negotiations closer, the Russian leadership continues to insist on fulfilling all the original objectives of the invasion. This position is voiced by both official Kremlin representatives and participants in propaganda broadcasts.

Moscow shows no willingness to end the war in exchange for merely territorial concessions from Ukraine. On the contrary, Russian officials reserve the right to make additional political demands, even if Kyiv agrees to the terms currently under discussion.

Tsymbalyuk cited one such statement from Russian television, where propaganda representatives were discussing possible negotiations and Russia’s future goals.

“Let them meet there and decide whatever they want. We understand perfectly well what needs to happen. And no one has renounced the goals of the ‘special military operation.’ Nor do we intend to,”
– stated a participant in the Russian propaganda broadcast.

For Ukraine, this means the risk of new demands even after a possible relinquishment of the unoccupied territories of Donetsk Oblast. After all, the Kremlin states that its goals include not only the seizure of territory but also a change in Ukraine’s political and security situation.

Tsymbaliuk believes that the Russian side will use any concessions to further intensify the pressure. He also criticized the position of American mediators, who, in his opinion, often advocate proposals that primarily benefit Moscow.

After Ukraine’s conditional withdrawal from Donbas, they will simply present us with new political demands. That is exactly what will happen. They are not abandoning their original war aims,
– Tsymbaliuk emphasized.

The journalist was particularly outraged by Donald Trump’s statements that Putin allegedly seeks peace. After all, these words are being spoken at a time when the Russian army continues massive strikes on Ukrainian cities, and the Kremlin is not changing its political demands.

Tsymbaliuk compared the current shelling to what he personally witnessed at the start of the full-scale invasion in Pokrovsk and Kramatorsk. Now, intense artillery fire and the threat of missile strikes remain a reality even for cities far removed from the front lines.

Given this, the journalist does not consider territorial concessions a way to guarantee lasting peace. For the Kremlin, they may merely be another step in implementing plans that the Russian leadership has not publicly renounced.

The Kremlin Has Doubts About Trump

A telling shift has occurred in the rhetoric of Russian politicians regarding possible agreements with Donald Trump. State Duma Deputy Alexei Zhuravlev stated that a meeting between the American, Russian, and Chinese leaders could resolve many international issues, but the implementation of its decisions would depend on U.S. domestic policy.

Zhuravlev contrasted Putin and Xi Jinping with the U.S. president. In his view, the leaders of Russia and China are capable of guaranteeing the implementation of any agreements, whereas Trump is forced to take into account the position of Congress and the results of upcoming elections.

These leaders are 100 percent accountable to their countries. They say it – they do it. Trump, unfortunately, is currently in limbo. There are midterm elections, Congress, and the Senate. Everything will depend on what kind of Congress we end up with,
Zhuravlev stated.

Tsymbaliuk pointed out that the representative of the Russian legislature had effectively acknowledged that State Duma deputies have no real influence on the Kremlin’s decisions. After all, in his explanation, the democratic mechanisms of the U.S. government appear to be an obstacle, while Putin’s lack of oversight is presented as an advantage.

At the same time, the Russian side is closely monitoring shifts in political sentiment in the U.S. According to the journalist’s assessment, the Kremlin is already anticipating that after the midterm elections, Trump may lose some of his ability to implement agreements with Moscow.

This, he argues, explains the increasingly cautious attitude of Russian politicians toward the U.S. president. The Kremlin is in no hurry to make concessions, even when the White House tries to offer new economic and diplomatic incentives.

Tsymbalyuk suggests that, over time, Russian propaganda may shift to even harsher criticism of Trump. At the same time, the Russians themselves have not given up on their desire to reach an agreement with the U.S. on the division of spheres of influence, particularly through a possible trilateral format involving China.

The journalist considers such discussions about the future world order to be premature. He does not rule out that the distribution of influence among states may indeed change over time, but these changes could also affect Russia itself.

He even suggested that, in the long term, new lines of political and economic influence could run through the territory of the Russian Federation, particularly in the Ural region. Tsymbalyuk links this scenario to possible long-term shifts in the balance of power between Moscow, Beijing, and Western nations.

The Price of Agreements with Putin

U.S. officials continue to seek opportunities for separate agreements with Russia. In particular, according to Axios, discussions took place as part of the contacts related to the Oslo negotiations regarding the release of a U.S. citizen currently imprisoned in Russia.

This refers to an American sentenced in Russia to seven years in prison on charges of mercenary activity. According to information cited by Tsymbalyuk, his release could serve as an example to the U.S. administration of the practical benefits of negotiations with Putin.

The journalist noted that Washington could use even limited humanitarian achievements as an argument in favor of further agreements with the Kremlin. However, the negotiations on the release of prisoners do not in themselves mean that Moscow is ready to change its demands on Ukraine.

Tsymbalyuk identifies a much broader problem in the U.S. administration’s attempt to reach an agreement with Russia and only then focus on the confrontation with China. He is convinced that such an approach can only weaken the U.S.’s position in both regions.

It turns out that right now they want to use Ukraine to stop the Russian invasion, and then all together take on China. But it doesn’t work that way. If you can’t be strong in Europe when there are no objective reasons for weakness, then what can you possibly accomplish in China?
– emphasized Tsymbaliuk.

As an example of the loss of American influence, he cited the reduction of U.S. international aid programs. This refers to funding for civil society organizations, information projects, and other initiatives that for many years shaped Washington’s presence in various regions of the world.

After the winding down of some of these programs, the resulting opportunities may be exploited by other countries. Tsymbaliuk noted that China is already actively expanding its presence in areas where the U.S. has abandoned its previous instruments of influence.

In Ukraine, some of the programs previously supported by American donors have been extended thanks to European funding. The journalist emphasized the importance of this aid; however, for the U.S. itself, abandoning long-term international projects means a loss of political capital.

Meanwhile, in Washington, disputes between Democrats and Republicans over foreign policy continue. Tsymbaliuk believes that the issue of Ukraine should not be reduced to the personal relationship between Zelenskyy and Trump, since what matters most are the decisions of the U.S. administration and their consequences.

Medvedev Attacks Trump

One of the most notable signs of a shift in Russian rhetoric was a statement by Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council. He criticized the U.S. president, even though Moscow had secured certain economic concessions from Washington.

Medvedev acknowledged Trump’s pragmatic approach to business agreements, particularly regarding Russian diesel fuel. However, at the same time, he questioned Trump’s strategic abilities and emphasized that individual trade decisions do not alter the nature of Russia’s relations with the United States.

The current, extremely self-centered occupant of the White House is a fairly pragmatic man. As a strategist, let’s be frank, he’s just so-so. But he has a good business instinct. Both the diesel deal with Russia and a number of other moves could bring him quite tangible dividends,
Medvedev wrote.

The Russian politician then criticized the Graham sanctions bill, which aims to increase economic pressure on Russia and Iran. He called the bill a systematic anti-Russian decision by the American elite and suggested that even future generations of Russians would feel its consequences.

Medvedev was particularly outraged by the prospect of long-term sanctions. In his view, even a temporary suspension of certain restrictions would not eliminate the threat of their reuse as a tool to pressure Moscow.

The Graham Act is a systematic Russophobic act by the American elite, designed to last for decades. It is quite likely that our grandchildren will live under its provisions,
Medvedev stated.

The Russian politician also called the sanctions an illegal violation of the rights of Russia and its citizens. He even attempted to portray U.S. economic restrictions as actions that could qualify as genocide.

Tsymbaliuk pointed out the contradiction between such accusations and Trump’s attempts to establish economic cooperation with Moscow. After all, the U.S. administration is offering Russia opportunities for trade, while Russian officials continue to characterize the U.S. as a fundamental adversary.

Medvedev also stated that relations between Moscow and Washington have been damaged for decades to come. He explicitly acknowledged that even after isolated economic agreements, Russia does not expect a full-fledged strategic partnership with the United States.

“We must acknowledge that relations between Russia and the U.S. have once again been damaged for decades to come. We have been, are, and will remain systemic adversaries,”
– wrote the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council.

The journalist links these statements to expectations that Trump’s position will weaken after the U.S. election. In his view, the Kremlin is paying less and less attention to the U.S. president’s desire to reach quick agreements and is more openly demonstrating its own long-term intentions.

Despite this, Washington continues to discuss the possibility of Ukraine making territorial concessions. Tsymbaliuk considers it dangerous to agree to cede the Donbas under conditions where the Russian leadership does not renounce further demands and, at the same time, acknowledges the protracted nature of the confrontation with the West.

We must not give them anything. We must not, because it won’t make things any easier – it will only make them worse. That is the law of the geopolitical jungle,
– Tsymbaliuk emphasized.

Russia continues to demand concessions without offering, in return, to abandon its original goals. That is precisely why the journalist considers preserving Ukraine’s defensive capabilities more important than attempts to satisfy the Kremlin’s current demands.

Threats to the Baltic States

Russian propaganda is also stepping up threats against European countries following Ukrainian strikes on St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region. In particular, Russian television has begun accusing the Baltic states of allowing Ukrainian drones to allegedly use their airspace to attack Russian targets.

Tsymbaliuk called these claims a fabrication, through which Moscow is attempting to shift part of the responsibility for the consequences of its own aggression onto neighboring countries. At the same time, Russian propagandists are using these accusations to issue new threats against NATO member states.

Sooner or later, you’ll get what’s coming to you. You’re constantly taking unfriendly actions against a much more powerful eastern neighbor. Are you counting on Article 5 of the NATO Treaty to protect you? It’s there today, but it may not be there tomorrow – just like the European Union,
– Khodaryonok warned.

Through these statements, Russian propaganda is attempting to cast doubt on the very system of European security. At the same time, Moscow is increasingly facing the consequences of the war on its own territory, even though the initial invasion plans called for a swift capture of Ukraine.

St. Petersburg, an important industrial, port, and military center of Russia, is now also coming under attack from Ukrainian drones. This places an additional strain on Russian air defense, which is forced to protect not only troops on the front lines but also targets deep within the country.

Or perhaps St. Petersburg won’t even be there anymore. You start a war expecting it to last two or three days and end with a victory parade in Kyiv, and then St. Petersburg is on fire. And no one even mentions those two or three days anymore,
– Tsymbalyuk noted.

Russian propagandists continue to claim that their state has existed for centuries and will remain unchanged. Tsymbaliuk pointed out that the modern Russian Federation was formed after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, inheriting a significant portion of its military and nuclear capabilities.

According to the journalist, the Kremlin is trying to use this legacy as a basis for threatening neighboring states. However, Ukraine continues to resist Russian aggression, maintaining its independence and the ability to strike at the enemy’s military and logistical facilities.

“Ukraine was, is, and will be,”
– concluded Tsymbaliuk.

Roman Tsymbaliuk on U.S. pressure on Ukraine: watch the video