Trump Wants a Ceasefire at Any Cost: How the Kremlin Is Using This to Its Advantage

Vladimir Putin’s proposal to organize a so-called humanitarian mission in Kostiantynivka, negotiations with representatives of Donald Trump’s administration, and new statements about a ceasefire may be part of the Kremlin’s attempt to drag out the negotiation process and use it to its own advantage. At the same time, the White House appears interested in any kind of ceasefire that would allow Donald Trump to demonstrate a diplomatic success. However, these initiatives may be driven by far more pragmatic political calculations – ranging from the U.S. president’s desire to divert attention from domestic problems to attempts to shift the balance of power in international politics.

Political scientist and American studies expert Oleksandra Filippenko explained in an interview with 24 Channel why Putin needs a humanitarian mission in Kostiantynivka, why Trump is interested in a swift ceasefire, and how the Kremlin is using the negotiations to buy time. The expert also assessed the U.S. administration’s attitude toward international law, the prospects for a stronger European role, a possible return of the U.S. to isolationism, and explained why Trump’s policies resemble a revival of Cold War logic.

Humanitarian Mission in Kostiantynivka: Why Does Putin Need a New Initiative?

How do you assess Putin’s proposal to organize a so-called “humanitarian mission” in Kostiantynivka, modeled after the example of Oleshky, against the backdrop of negotiations with Jared Kushner? At the same time, Zelenskyy announced the blocking of StarShield along the front lines and in the occupied territories, hinting that the U.S. may no longer consider them Ukrainian. To what extent does the White House realize that Putin could use these negotiations to his own advantage?

Well, generally speaking, regarding Starlink and StarShield, I’d address that in the second part of my answer, because I have some suspicions that Iran might be involved here. But let’s start first with Konstantinovka and, more broadly, with these proposals, as we’ve been discussing.

Donald Trump has also sounded like pure cynicism lately. Well, what can you do? He’s squeezing every last drop of PR out of the situation, just as he squeezed every last drop out of the situation with Oleshky.

The conclusion: a humanitarian mission. After the signing of the historic truce, Melania Trump hosted Ukraine and Russia at the White House. It sounds as if the war in Europe is already over. Taken out of context – it really is a historic truce, or something like that. Donald Trump would like to see something similar again.

For the American side, of course, the ideal scenario would be an end to the war in Europe – a ceasefire. It doesn’t necessarily have to involve signing some kind of agreement – they might not even agree – but the main thing is that there be a ceasefire.

Political scientist specializing in U.S. affairs on Trump’s policy, which affects more than just Ukraine: video

If only there were a ceasefire – that would be wonderful. And that’s why they’re doing everything they can to pressure the Kremlin into eventually agreeing, because it’s the only country that refuses to agree to a ceasefire.

The Ukrainian side, on the other hand, always agrees instantly, immediately: “Please, a ceasefire right now, this very second.” Europe is calling for this. No, only the Kremlin is against it; only Russia is against an immediate ceasefire. This would be very good for Donald Trump, but they’ve dug in their heels – and there’s no way around it.

So, well, okay, then there are these humanitarian missions, or something like that. This is important and necessary for Donald Trump, particularly to deflect the storm of various Democratic investigations into the Trump administration away from himself and his family.

Investigations are being prepared in large numbers. And now the future chairs of the oversight and legal committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate – who are already Democrats and will clearly be the chairs– are saying, in effect, “Get your documents ready; please, we’re going to investigate everything now.” This includes the diesel deals and payments made by Umar Kremlev to Donald Trump Jr. And many, many, many other things as well.

And Donald Trump wants, at least on the issue related to Ukraine, to distance himself a bit and defend himself with those very same statements: “Do you have anything on my family? And my family is Melania Trump. And Melania Trump – look, what? Humanitarian missions.” That’s how strongly Donald Trump wants to achieve this.

And that’s why Putin’s proposals – does he even understand that in Konstantinovka, that Konstantinovka isn’t under his control but is controlled by the Ukrainian side? Does he understand what’s actually happening there? That’s the second question.

And it doesn’t matter, because we’re not going to say, “Oh, the boyars are bad, and the tsar doesn’t know anything.” No, no – they’re all to blame, without a doubt. And that’s exactly what doesn’t matter at all.

The main thing is that here they are – the proposals, the new humanitarian mission. They understand that this is important to Donald Trump; they understand that this is what he needs. And so, naturally, this is just another way to buy time, another delay negotiation process , and more of these same old talks.

Look at what they were talking about there. Putin told a joke. He said that, supposedly, we’ll never sort out the “gray zones.” There are only borders.

Well, yes, the 1991 borders – truly internationally recognized borders. I’d like that, please, let’s do it, of course. So let’s talk about borders.

No, but that’s their idea of their borders – their drawn-up borders, their made-up Constitution, and so on. All of this, of course, is talk – general talk – okay, not about the Polovtsians and Pechenegs, but it all happened on the same level. And all of this – all these general discussions.

And, by the way, here’s a quote from Marco Rubio: Marco Rubio likes to say, “We don’t negotiate in front of cameras; we don’t negotiate in front of the press.” But this is precisely those very negotiations in front of the cameras, and these are exactly those negotiations in front of the press.

As for Starlink and Starshield, of course, we can’t say for sure right now; we can’t be certain, but I get the impression that this is connected to Iran. In what sense? Russia is providing Iran with intelligence . And a lot of things… Donald Trump even said something like, “Well, yes, Russia is providing it, and we’re providing it to Ukraine” – something along those lines.

And isn’t this connected to the fact that perhaps some new U.S. operation is being prepared – maybe something involving Iran? Maybe not. Maybe it’s purely… and this is where Congress will investigate; they’ll ask all these questions: why was it shut down, who shut it down, who made the decision, and so on and so forth.

But if this is related to Iran, then perhaps it’s a kind of dangerous game, because it’s a game with the lives of Ukrainians at stake, first and foremost. “Please, don’t give Iran any data, because we’re going to carry out an operation here, and we’ll shut things down a bit here in Ukraine, and so on.” Maybe that’s not the case at all, but to me it looks like a hint at something like that.

Why Trump Is Instructing Vance to Put Pressure on Democrats

Could the next two years of Trump’s presidency be marked by pressure on the Democrats, particularly through investigations and corruption allegations? Does he have enough leverage to intimidate political opponents and hinder their activities?

Why did he suddenly start talking about J.D. Vance, and why did he bring up Iran? Because after his defeat, J.D. Vance wrote the exact same message: that Iran – that’s the reason for the defeat – it’s because of the war in Iran.

In other words, a war with Iran is bad. So, in theory, please, let J.D. Vance lead the negotiations on the American side. If a war with Iran is bad, then by all means, let him lead the negotiations, just as he has been doing. Iran wanted to see him as a negotiator anyway.

But here, Donald Trump is mixing several things together in a single message. On the one hand, he tells J.D. Vance: “No, there’s no need – we don’t need any deal; everything’s great as it is. Please go ahead with ‘ corruption in democratic states.’”

So here we have the Iran issue running in parallel, along with the message that we don’t need any negotiations – everything is great as it is, everything is fine. Plus, there’s this indirect – well, not exactly indirect, but this kind of criticism, seemingly subtle, like a wisp of criticism from J.D. Vance, who, as it were, wrote that war – that is, war – is to blame for the defeat. So the war is bad, and so on.

So that’s another thing – yeah, we don’t need anything. Please, Mr. Vance, don’t even talk about this or mention it at all. And then he shifts the focus to the Democrats: “Go ahead,” he says, “deal with the Democrats.”

First of all, J.D. Vance really – Donald Trump came up with his area of focus. Vice presidents often have a specific portfolio; they’re given something to handle a certain aspect of American policy. It varies widely: some have focused on green energy, others on something else, and still others on something else entirely. In other words, there have been various initiatives.

And so, while J.D. Vance is already very active in the political arena, Donald Trump has additionally assigned him this particular mission – the fight against corruption. The fight against corruption, of course, in Democratic states, without a doubt.

And, of course, this is yet another sign to all of us – and to Democrats first and foremost – that Donald Trump is going to fight, fight, and fight. Fight, fight, fight. Remember when Donald Trump was injured in the ear – when that incident happened – he raised his fist, and there it was: “fight, fight, fight” – it’s a very familiar image. Really, fight, fight, fight – that’s what Donald Trump wants to do.

The first sign was Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff. A person like that isn’t someone who compromises – quite the opposite.

The second is Dana White, whom Donald Trump nominated as press secretary – that is, the director of the UFC, the director of this organization… correct me if I’m wrong on the translation. United Fighting, United Federation – ah, so it’s the mixed martial arts federation. That’s right. The United Mixed Martial Arts Federation.

Dana White, who, as the CEO of this federation, officially earns two hundred million dollars a year. Well, the White House press secretary, I assume, makes a little less than two hundred million dollars a year. And on top of that, Dana White has a bunch of other projects, contracts, and so on. Here you go.

And Donald Trump writes that, supposedly, he needs Dana White to become the head of this – the head of the White House press office. What is this? It’s clear that Dana White won’t become the head of the White House press office, but this is a sign of a fight. Fight, fight, fight.

We need a fighter. We need to fight the press in the octagon to defend everything about Donald Trump. That’s the second sign of a fight. And here’s the third sign, the third message: yes, Donald Trump will take on the Democrats. He has no intention of giving up; instead, he’ll spend the next two years fighting, fighting, fighting.

Europe at the Negotiating Table and the Kremlin’s New Ultimatums

Does the U.S. understand the implications of Putin’s demands regarding a new European security architecture – specifically, NATO’s return to its 1997 borders and restrictions on the Alliance’s military presence? Do Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner realize that by bringing Europeans to the negotiating table under such conditions, they may in fact be playing into the Kremlin’s hands?

Here, unfortunately, it really must be said that for the White House right now, any ceasefire at any cost – any ceasefire at any cost – is already… They understand that this will lead to destruction down the road. Of course, they also understand that this is a violation of international law.

And they, for example, come up with these proposals: “Let’s redraw the borders of Donbas,” or “Let’s just shade it in – no one will notice.” Look, we’ll just redraw the outline. What, does Donald Trump have trouble with names? There used to be the Gulf of Mexico – now it’s the American Gulf; there used to be Lake Ontario – now it’s Lake America. Well, the Donbas will be different, too.

And the fact that… well, okay, let’s even talk about this seriously. Well, that would require holding a referendum in Ukraine on changing regional borders. It’s just that if we go by international law – even if it’s a hypothetical situation – let’s say they agree to it – a referendum would have to be held throughout the entire territory of Ukraine, including the temporarily occupied territories. Of course, of course, that’s not even on the table. And that, in turn, leads to many other complications.

Where do these proposals come from? Because international law – well, put it in a golden frame, and let them admire it in Brussels. That’s how the Americans view it right now.

In other words, at the moment, this is really a step to the side – not toward Putin or anything – but it looks that way because, of course, it plays right into his hands. But for Donald Trump right now, for the current White House, what’s international law got to do with it? What are we even talking about? Greenland is ours. Where’s international law in that? We can take out Nicolás Maduro. Where’s international law in that?

That’s the hemisphere – that’s where the important American presence is, all of that. In Europe, we’re really seeing now how the White House operates – and this became evident during the talks in Abu Dhabi, when Jared Kushner said this, and the Wall Street Journal quoted him: if Europe manages to choose a single representative, that will be a greater achievement than if we persuade Putin to let Europe sit at the negotiating table.

First, what does “letting Europe sit at the negotiating table” mean when it comes to European security? Second, well, this attitude is a bit condescending. Europe at the negotiating table – Europe can’t even agree on a single representative, but it would be a major achievement if they could reach an agreement. That’s the attitude. What international law are we talking about? Where’s the “international” part? Where are those internationally recognized borders?

So, of course, we’re seeing both increased European involvement and a Europe that – in principle, yes, of course – will have to proceed based on reality here, because I immediately want to say: it should have been done in 2008. Well, it should have been – it really should have been. Both in 2008, when Russia attacked Georgia, and in 2014, when Russia attacked Ukraine. It should have been done; it really should have been. Well, okay, now we’re living in a reality where we’ve moved on – all those milestones are long behind us.

But now Europe – and this is also during the Trump presidency, though, unfortunately, not from the start of the full-scale invasion – is starting to talk about its own security and strengthening its defense, is suddenly beginning to mention: look where Macron is constantly traveling. Nuclear weapons testing. And here we have some military exercises, right? Right here.

Well, not weapons, but warheads that can carry, in particular, nuclear weapons – specifically MIRV warheads, or multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. They’re testing all of this and showing it to Macron. When did this happen? Where have we seen this before? We’d forgotten. France didn’t really do this at all – well, at least it didn’t attach much importance to it. Now everyone’s gotten into it. Now everyone’s come to their senses; everyone’s talking about building up their arsenals and producing their own weapons.

All these idealistic notions about how, oh, we’re going to switch to green energy now, and everything will be so wonderful. We’re living in this new world where no one attacks anyone. No, no – everything has come full circle, everything is going backward, and everyone realizes that no, we need military production, heavy industry, the defense-industrial complex – we need to invest money there. Social programs – yes, we need to cut back on some of them, invest in military programs, and so on.

Right now – over the past two years – Europe has been doing this, and we can see how they’ve stepped up their efforts. And Macron says, “I can represent Europe in negotiations,” for example. *Le Figaro* writes about this, noting that Macron is fully prepared to put himself forward as a candidate. Norway and Finland – yes, Norway and Finland – are right to call Putin and talk to him. There it is – that’s Europe’s agency, that’s Europe acting as a subject. Europe is a subject in its own right. Who, without Europe, is going to decide on European security? No, no, no, please.

It turns out that when it comes to European security, Europe’s sole representative is Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That’s all there is to it. So, who at this table is representing Europe’s security architecture right now? It’s clear that Europe also understands: Ukraine's security is Europe's security .

And yes, it has been said many times – and, unfortunately, we passed those milestones long ago – that yes, Ukraine is, of course, fighting for Europe. Of course, that’s exactly how it is. It’s terrifying to even talk about it. But here we are witnessing – unfortunately – the Trump administration’s approach. Cynicism? Cynicism, yes, absolutely. International law is somewhere – somewhere in a golden frame – but certainly not in the White House.

Can the U.S. Regain Its Former Influence After Trump?

Can Marco Rubio gradually build his own political team and prepare for higher office by distancing himself from some of Trump’s decisions regarding Ukraine? And more broadly: Will the U.S. be able to regain the global status and influence it had before Trump took office once his presidency ends?

Of course, and Marco Rubio is one of those potential key players here. Take note: indeed, he’s in Paris, he’s meeting with Sibiga, and he’s also involved in the Ukraine track right now – he’s not on the sidelines of this process.

But he’s the only one talking about European security with Europe. And over in Abu Dhabi, the Americans are actually discussing European security with Russia – which is also absolutely fantastic. And Ukraine is representing Europe there. That’s exactly how it’s playing out.

Yes, Marco Rubio is, of course, one of the tracks, and I’m expecting, first of all, a new bill to be introduced in Congress regarding the strengthening the U.S. presence in Europe, military presence, an increase in troop levels, and so on.

As for Marco Rubio, yes, certainly, first and foremost in terms of international law itself – at least the very foundations of international law – but not in its entirety. I hope we’ll discuss this further after the 47th president.

But I get the impression that if we’re going to talk about some kind of global legacy of Trump’s, it will be a legacy linked to isolationism, strange as it may seem.

That is to say, as we’ve already discussed, isolationism is, in fact, the standard and norm of the American mindset. The American mindset was built on the idea that Europe is perpetually at war, that there’s no need to deal with it at all, and that it doesn’t deserve any attention. This was the foundation upon which the American state was built in the 18th century, the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th century. It was only after World War II that the situation changed.

And Marco Rubio – yes, of course, he can strengthen it, so to speak – but still not to the same degree as before. That is, for example, if Marco Rubio enters the White House, I don’t expect the full restoration of, for example, USAID, or any other American humanitarian organizations that operated around the world or promoted democracy and other causes, and supported democratic movements in various countries. That’s unlikely. Very, very unlikely.

An American military presence, strengthening the American military presence in Europe – yes. Precisely in order to simply uphold, to strictly uphold the boundaries of international law. That’s exactly how it should be.

But the kind of focus on, say, economic cooperation that we saw before – that mutually beneficial approach: “Let’s make it so…” – no, here, it seems to me, isolationism will emerge; it will remain. Trump-style isolationism.

Why does the current U.S. course resemble a return to the Cold War?

Can we say that Trump and his team are consciously abandoning the principle of the supremacy of international law in favor of a policy of power? Do they believe that the U.S., as a superpower, should operate by the same rules as China or Russia – that is, exert pressure on others rather than uphold the international order?

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, this is what we’re seeing again. It feels as if history never ended, as if the Cold War never ended, as if we were… Donald Trump is literally taking us back to that history display case where everything about the Cold War and realism is written. Here’s the realistic approach. That’s how it is. So, guys, work with that.

Of course, it’s very hard for me to even talk about the possibility of considering the idea that Russia shouldn’t be required to withdraw to the 1991 borders. It’s very hard for me to even accept, without some sense of horror, that this could be seriously considered in any way.

But Donald Trump is completely unfazed. He says, “Guys, realism, realism – your international law, you’ve got that somewhere over there; here’s history, here are the textbooks; there you are – yes, that happened back then. Now the situation is different.” And yes, this is the law of the strong.

And the catastrophe – I mean, the global one – is that the foundations of what allowed various states, not necessarily very strong militarily, to feel confident on the international stage and to be absolutely equal partners on the international stage are being destroyed and eroded.

Well, for Donald Trump, this is a completely realistic approach. The classic image is billiards. Here, states collide with one another like billiard balls. Whoever strikes harder – that’s it. And maybe that ball flies right out of bounds, or maybe it rolls into a pocket somewhere – and that’s it.

Whoever is stronger is the one who actually strikes, and that’s the one who can compete. But if someone is weaker – it’s an immediate no, no, no. They’re forced to form some kind of alliances, forced to defend themselves in other ways or align with someone powerful.

Of course, this is the typical view of realists – simply realists who, for example, ask: why, for instance, were there absolutely no relations whatsoever with North Korea under Kim Jong-un? What kind of relations could the U.S. have? And Donald Trump, remember, corresponded with him during his first term. They met in the demilitarized zone – they met because Donald Trump, as a realist, takes that approach.

Well, he’s a leader – you can’t just refuse to meet with him. The same goes for Putin, it turns out. I mean, he’s a leader, too. So, we have to find a way to negotiate with him. We shouldn’t assume that: “Oh no, we’re going to block them all now, ban everything, and nothing will happen.” But he’s still a leader. Well, then, we have to figure something out.

That’s the kind of realism we happily rejected and moved away from. And it seemed like that was a thing of the distant past – both the “concert of great powers” and “ the division of the world into spheres of influence.”

And Trump wants to bring everyone back there – much to Putin’s delight. But one thing is clear: no matter what, the world will certainly be divided not with Putin, but with Xi Jinping. That’s the point. And China, Russia – well, yes, a raw materials appendage; yes, of course, that’s important – but this is what the erosion and destruction of the very foundations of international law look like. Yes.

Why Is Trump Taking Credit for Aid to Ukraine?

Why does Trump shift the blame for problems onto his predecessors, particularly Biden, while at the same time taking credit for U.S. aid to Ukraine – aid that began under his predecessor? Is this a deliberate political manipulation?

Donald Trump still loves to talk – and he mentioned this, by the way, in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” just a few days ago – about how Obama gave Ukraine only “blankets,” meaning he gave them nothing but blankets. But I gave them HIMARS. Look at me, me, me.

I mean – no, no. Javelins, not HIMARS.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. If it had been HIMARS, we wouldn’t even have Trump – we wouldn’t have needed him. Yeah, that’s, you know, a Freudian slip. I wish that had been the case. We’d have Patriots right now, too.

That’s what Donald… that’s what he really loves. On the one hand, he loves to say, “I helped Ukraine; it’s thanks to me that Ukraine was able to hold out in the first place.” But whatever Biden provided afterward – well, for some reason, that suddenly becomes a bad thing. Well, that’s just how it is. Donald Trump, just as we know him.