Christian Smith: Was this the week that broke U.S. ukrainian relations? Or is it just business as usual in Donald Trump’s guide to negotiation? President Trump and Zelenskyy have been far from diplomatic with each other in recent weeks. At the same time, new US Sanctions on Russia have been paused and a diesel deal agreed. So what’s the latest souring of relations with Ukraine? Where does it go from here? Hello, and welcome to this podcast from Geopolitical Futures. I’m Christian Smith and I am joined, as always, by George Friedman, Geopolitical Futures chairman and founder. And before we dive into the latest, just a reminder, you don’t find everything that we write about in terms of geopolitical analysis@geopoliticalfutures.com George, let’s get started. We’ve seen plenty in the last few weeks in this area. We’ve got the diesel deal with Russia, the paused new sanctions. The Lindsey Graham sanctions have been paused by President Trump. At the same time, Zelenskyy and Trump have been at loggerheads. There has been the pausing and now seemingly the restarting of the Starlink satellite intelligence and Internet provision. All of this that’s going on. What do you make of this bigger picture? What’s going on here?
George Friedman: Well, firstly, we have to remember that Trump and Zelenskyy never liked each other. Way back at the beginning, there was a terrific fight publicly between them, an argument, so this is not new. But more importantly, Trump came into the presidency and started talks with Putin. One of the things he offered to Putin in return for ending the war on some terms is that the United States would open much closer economic ties with Russia. And in the same way that he is working with China economically, he tends to look at the issues economically as well. With Russia, it was a very good offer for Putin. Putin rejected it. Putin didn’t reject it by saying no. He simply never carried out the things he said he might do. And endless conversations took place. What we see now is an emergence of re emergence of that fundamental issue. First, that in some way Russia would have some advantages in Ukraine if it stopped its hostilities. At the same time, the benefits it would have for being able to trade with the United States, get investment from the United States, would be substantial. Putin didn’t like that. But now he had something to offer the president in return, which is not much. It’s that they can get diesel fuel from them in this current crisis. But the situation fundamentally is that the Russians have failed in Ukraine. They failed to occupy the country. They failed to defeat them. They’re a weak military power in that sense, okay? But at the same time, Trump is going back to wanting to end the war. And that war will not end, obviously, because it’s going on for five years with the Russians not winning without some benefits being offered to Putin. There is no opportunity of the Ukrainians invading Russia and destroying Putin. That’s not an option. The only two options are the war continues. Okay? And under the circumstances that we’re in now with the oil crisis, we see opportunities with Russia to some extent. Not just diesel. That was a smaller element, but possibilities. And we also see Russia as, after almost five years of war, much weaker and exhausted, trying to raise more troops and so on and so forth. So he returned to his first offer, which is basically, we will reach an accommodation with you, Russia, engage in economic mutual benefits. Ukraine will not be occupied by you, but will make some concessions to you in certain ways. This brings in the question of Zelensky. He’s been fighting effectively for five years. He cannot defeat the Russians. On the other hand, he can hold them. Okay? So the question to Zelensky is, how long does this go on in, particularly with the energy crisis that’s facing the world and that Russia has a part in? So the offer that he made here was to open better economic relations, the diesel issue being symbolized, returning to idea of the ability of the United States and Russia to collaborate with each other on economic matters, with the end of the Ukraine war likely with Russia holding on to the areas, the small areas that it holds, and so on. And Zelenskyy obviously did not have won any war on these terms. And at that point, Trump attacked Zelensky, saying, we want you to step down as president, and so on and so forth, which he, of course, didn’t do, but we have to see. What I’m saying is a consistency in Trump’s approach to this war. One, his basic strategy was exactly the same as Joe Biden’s. Send some weapons, possibly the Europeans paying for them, provide intelligence, and send no troops. And for almost five years, that’s been carried out. So at this point, the question is, how does this war end? All wars end. This war, neither side has been totally defeated. Neither side has been victorious. And from the American point of view, given the oil crisis, this is a very good time to end the. End the war. Obviously, Zelenskyy resisted. On the other hand, it was seen that he was capitulating to the Russians. On the other hand, he was. You can say if you want, that he simply was facing a reality. The war could not go on. The Ukrainians could not defeat the Russians. Stop them. The Russians could not defeat the Ukrainians. What was the point? And there are economic ties that he wants in the same way that he wants economics with the Chinese. Remember, when Trump looks at geopolitics, which has two dimensions, military and economic, he focuses more on the economic than on the military sometimes, in some cases. So what we see here is a very logical evolution. There is a decision that the Ukrainians have to make. Do they continue this war? At what cost? And will outsiders, particularly the United States and Europe, continue to underwrite this war? Okay. And what are they going to do to get it? So the American position on this, and Trump has done it in his inimical style, not explaining exactly what he was saying is, okay, it’s a stalemate, positive, long as the killing go on. In the meantime, we have economic deals to make with the Russians.
Christian Smith: A lot to unpick there, George. And I want to go through it to start off with one thing. I don’t know if you’ve. Eric, you talked about on the podcast before in regards to this is sort of the propaganda and the perception side of things, as you say. There’s some people have sort of suggested that Trump is capitulating to Putin. There is a suggestion from this diesel deal we’ll come to in a moment there. It’s a bit of a propaganda wind. People in Ukraine have said they feel betrayed by America. Trump said in an interview this week that Zelensky’s had lots of opportunities to make a deal. He just needs to make a deal. Of course, the reaction to that is, well, a bad deal is worse than no deal. And Mitt Romney, interestingly enough, posted on social media suggesting that it’s like saying George Washington could have just made a deal during the American Revolution to stop the killing. Why is there such a pressure on Zelensky from Trump here and not perhaps the other way around?
George Friedman: Well, the reason ultimately is that unlike George Washington, there is no likelihood of the British being defeated because the French intervened, which is why the British were defeated. In this case, the United States nor the Europeans have sent troops into this battle. So this is the Europeans cheering on the Ukrainians. Okay? The Americans saying, look, you’re not going to get any better than you are now. And the Europeans, in a way, saying, you’re betraying the Ukrainians. Okay, now, if we begin the war, the idea that Ukraine would survive a Russian invasion was very hard to conceive of. No one knew how weak the Russians actually were. Okay. So when you take a look at this you want to continue the war. The question is toward what end? Is there any possibility of the Ukrainians actually defeating the Russian forces? Probably not. Almost certainly not. Is it likely that the Russians will be able to occupy, after five years, Ukraine, defeat them? Not at all. Under these circumstances, the idea of continuing the war, particularly at the cost of energy and so on and so forth to the Americans doesn’t seem to make sense. Those people who are saying that we are betraying Ukrainians have to define how this war ends. Does it end with a Ukrainian defeat of Russia? No. Does it end with a Russian defeat of Ukraine? Possibly, but probably not. Thus, all wars end, and this war will end with neither side having won and neither side having lost. So that’s the reality underground. So when you say we’re betraying them, well, we are also saying that neither side can win in this war. It’s about a time to stop. And by the way, the Americans have an interest in that. So all the people who are saying we’re betraying them, they’re not sending troops, they’re not sending the capabilities to defeat the Russians. Now, I don’t know what the Ukrainian public’s mood is, but I would expect that they are fairly well aware of the limits of the Ukrainian army, have lived through a terrible war for almost five years, but are hostile to the Russians and rarely will carry the load. But at some point, the reality that neither side can defeat the other beeps into it. I think the Russians are understanding this at this point, which was very hard for them to do and hard for them to admit. So what the Americans are saying to the Ukrainians is, look, you can keep fighting. You will not drive the Russians out. You will not defeat the Russian army. How does this end? So all those people who are saying the United States is betraying Ukraine have to explain what they’re doing to allow Ukraine to win the war, and how would it be done? So, as always, and Trump invites it, Trump is being hammered as betraying, but I see no one coming with an alternative solution to this war except continuing it for no end.
Christian Smith: Click the link in the description for access to our free newsletter. And for a limited time, you’ll receive an instant download of our special report on NATO’s eastern line by senior analyst Antonia Colabasanou. Well, the question, as you’re raising there is how do. How did it end? I suppose, George, and where we sort of got to last time we had, when the negotiations were quite prompt, dominant in the. In the press, was there were fundamental differences between Russia and Ukraine. In terms of which territory was handed over to Russia, particularly the areas of the Donbas which aren’t under Russian control right now. And also questions of security guarantees. But just looking at sort of the Russian side of things and what they may agree to, how do you marry those two sides up where both seem that they had red lines that they’d reached that they wouldn’t be willing to cross anymore? Or do you think that’s starting to change, particularly on the Russian side?
George Friedman: Well, if they’re willing to continue to send their troops to die, that’s fine. The alternative is to make an accommodation. An accommodation necessarily is not everything you want. You make concessions. I think the Russians are in trouble. They have exhausted their military in certain ways. They’re trying to raise more forces. Those forces will take a long time to train. And they’re not at the end of their rope in terms of being able to fight, but not able to mount a successful offensive. This is the same situation as Ukraine is in. It is not at the end of its rope. It continue to fight, just cannot impose its will on the Russians either. This is the point at which Trump has entered it, that he’s being condemned for abandoning Ukraine. Possibly that’s what he thinks he’s doing or wants to do. But I see it as a practical thing of saying, okay, you want the war to go on, and the Europeans, many of those come, say this should go on. Well, send the troops to defeat the Russians if you think you can. So I think this is a war that is stalemated and it’s going on without any hope of a breakthrough. And Trump has entered it in exactly the same way he entered it at the beginning of his term, saying to the Russians, if you end the war, we will have economic relations with you to be very beneficial to both of us. And saying to Ukrainians, you’re not going to win this war, you know, make a peace. And the Ukrainians, the Russians at that point wouldn’t have it. Okay. They nodded nicely and went away and left him hanging for years. And the Ukrainians were at that time enraged that they should do it. Thus it comes down to this. How does this end? And it’s not going to end in victory for either side.
Christian Smith: The diesel deal that was done between Trump and Putin, the general economists opinion seems to be that it’s going to have a very negligible impact on diesel prices in the US and general global supply anyway. So why do it? For Trump, it seems like a big political sacrifice.
George Friedman: Well, it’s not so much a political Sacrifice. It’s opening a door to the Russians. He’s fully aware of the fact that he has to end the Iranian war to end the crisis in oil. But he points out that if the Russians are willing to work on this with this small thing, perhaps they will move forward. In other words, when you have a negotiation, you get a small element going, you move forward. So I think that at this point was the purpose to have something happen, okay? So if you hadn’t been involved in negotiating something, you understand that both sides are absolutely adamant that they will not give anything anywhere, and then they start to slowly move forward on it. Trump is a negotiator. He’s negotiating. Now. During the negotiations, whenever they take place, each side at one point says, look, I don’t need a deal. I’m walking out, okay? That’s a normal path in this. Therefore, you normally see some signal of accommodation, then throwing up her hands and saying, this can’t be done. Each side is doing what I call a gut check who’s going to do forward. And this is not just in geopolitical negotiations or anything else. When you’re buying a house, you don’t walk into the house and say, this house is exactly what I wanted. Nor do you say, this house is a garbage dump. I don’t want to be here. You keep shifting around and moving around until you get the best price you can on both sides. So this is how a negotiation works. Now, the option of not having these negotiations is that the war continues, but continuing a war in which you have no hope of winning and the other side has no hope of winning. I think of the Vietnam War that went on for many years. Clearly the United States was not going to win it. Clearly the North Vietnamese were not going to be able to defeat the Americans. It finally ended in the American exhaustion and just leaving. In this case, the Ukrainians can’t leave, the Russians can’t leave. So we should look at the times we have negotiated something like purchasing a house, a used car, something like that, and take a look how we approach it. And at each time in negotiation, it looks like it’s going to not work. Somebody’s walking away, so on and so forth. This is the process of negotiation. Now, can this work? Possibly it won’t. On the other hand, can Russia continue this war given the consequences it had for its economy? Can the Ukrainians continue the war given the consequences it had on its military and civilian population? Well, they can choose to. But what Trump is trying to create, and I say this knowing all about his personality, and everything else he’s trying to do what has to happen for the end of the war, reach a common understanding in which neither side gets what the other wants. Therefore, yesterday it appeared that the Russians were quite open to this deal. Today they’ve announced they don’t want to have anything to do with it. This is a normal process of negotiation, especially after the Ukrainians said they don’t want to have anything to do with it.
Christian Smith: At the moment, there seems to be something of an impasse. As I said before, there are red lines that each side don’t seem willing to cross, and therefore it seems like a negotiated settlement is impossible. Is that just a normal aspect of negotiations with wars? There were wars in the past, I don’t know, the seven years war, where it seemed like there was never going to be a deal done or an ending. But then actually, eventually there was and there was a negotiation. And in hindsight, it was all fine. It was all just a time to get there.
George Friedman: Not only in negotiations of war, but negotiations, everything. At a certain point, it seems to break down. Each side wants to show that it doesn’t need to make this deal. The one who doesn’t need to make this deal is a stronger hand. Okay, so that’s how you look at it. But in this particular case, if the war continues, take a look what happens to Russia, its economy, the vast losses it’s had in humanity trying to raise new forces. Okay, how does that work? How does it work with the Ukrainians who have spent five years almost at war, losing many people? The only outcome of this is more people lost, more economics lost, and so on, without either side being able to end the war. Thus, the question is not let’s continue the war because we don’t want to give it up. At what point does each side recognize that it’s not going to win the war? It’s not going to end the war by victory, but it’s going to have to concede things. And that’s a very painful thing after you’ve been in war, to concede things. But at the same time, the reality is if the war continues, many Ukrainians will die, many Russians will die, the economies of both countries will suffer, and there seems to be no possibility of a military victory. So why do that? And this is something that has to sink into the negotiating system. Each side has to look at the other side and say they’re not going to give on these negotiations. And at that point you might reach something. But the idea that from the outside that it’s a betrayal by the Americans. Do not face the facts that the Ukrainians can’t win or be willing to intervene in the war, risking all sorts of things, sending American troops there. So when you take a look at it, the two sides themselves have to come to the realization that the other side is not going to be crippled, will not give in, will not concede. And that is a very difficult thing to do after you’ve lost so many people. But then you have to look at how many more people you’re going to lose and how much more economics you’re going to lose.
Christian Smith: You mentioned earlier, George, that Trump’s strategy is not too dissimilar from Biden’s. I mean, perhaps in the sense that, of course, the Europeans are mainly paying for things now, although of course, the European, the US Is, is. Is selling the weapons. But can you just expand on that? How is. Because for many people from the outside, Trump seems to have a very different approach to the war than. Than Biden.
George Friedman: Well, Biden sent no troops. Biden gave some weapons. Okay? And Biden praised the Ukrainians. Okay? The praising of the Ukrainians and the being more neutral is the only change. Trump has sent no troops. He has sent weapons financed by the Europeans, but still sent weapons. He’s provided the same intelligence that Biden did. So when you take a look at the rhetoric, it’s very different when you take a look at what they actually did. This war in the past five years under two administrations has been fought in the same way, from the outside willingness to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood without Americans being involved. So that’s not such an odd thing, which is that both Biden and Trump followed the American imperative. Do not get involved in other costly war. Secondly, put out possibilities to the Russians of advantages in ending the war, provide enough weapons to the Ukrainians that they cannot be defeated, and so on. So there’s a great similarity between their everything but their rhetoric and their behavior.
Christian Smith: Take a moment to follow and rate us on your preferred podcast platform. If you’re already watching on YouTube. Don’t forget to like and subscribe from the European perspective. I want to ask you a couple of questions about. About things in Europe right now partly related to this and in particular Zelenskyy in the last few days and European leaders as well. It’s been quite notable that there have been. There’s been less Trump whispering going on. There’s been less desire to keep Trump happy and not offend him. I suppose, in some ways, is that a sign that actually Europe is doing in Some ways what Trump wants, they are starting to invest and take ownership of their own defense in future. Or is this more just talk rather than action?
George Friedman: For one thing, there’s an obsession with the personality Trump. Okay? The reason I point out the similarity between Biden and Trump’s administration is this is an American thing. Both a Democratic liberal president and a conservative Republican president essentially carried out the same things. The difference is that Biden did not try to point out that the war has to end, simply was siding with Ukraine and not trying to negotiate anything. Trump is. But on the other hand, if he can’t, he’ll walk away. So I don’t think this is about Trump’s personality. Step back. Forget about Donald Trump. This war is being fought. Can the Russians win? What are they going to do that they haven’t done in the past five years? Can the Ukrainians win? So depersonalize it. Take Trump out of the relationship and ask Zelensky. All right, you don’t want to end the war. How are you going to beat the Russians?
Christian Smith: But are you seeing the Europeans bond together a bit more perhaps, than they had in the past?
George Friedman: The Europeans love bonding together. Doing stuff is not something they’re big at. Okay? If the Europeans really want to bond together, send their troops in, that’s something Europeans have not done in this war. Okay? So what people say is a very little interest to me. Okay? What they do is more telling, okay? That the Europeans blame everything on Donald Trump and he’s an unpleasant personality, so hit him with that. Doesn’t mean that the Europeans have another plan in place. What I think that the Europeans can enjoy is that they can blame Trump for not being aggressive enough without themselves filling the gap. So as for the Europeans, they have very carefully avoided getting involved in the war by rallying loudly in favor of Ukraine. Okay? So there’s an old saying in the Bronx, money talks, bullshit walks, and that’s where we are.
Christian Smith: Well, speaking of rallying, there were significant serious riots, protests, looting, call it what you like, in France over the weekend and in Italy to an extent, in Milan as well. They have. These came from a mixture of legitimate grievances, school children, even. Also Gilles Jean, the yellow vests, but also the ultra left, as they’ve been called. And increasingly, there’s comments that some of the influence, the fans were flamed by Iran and Russia. Does that make sense to you, George, that Russia in particular would be linked to some of these riots?
George Friedman: Well, you know, spontaneous uprising takes a lot of coordination, a lot of work to be spontaneous when you see 100 high school students throwing rocks. That could be spontaneous. When you see similar risings in multiple European countries out to Albania, you begin to wonder. All these countries are so unhappy about high schools. So when you take a look at the history of various events in Europe in the past, we remember when the new left was in place and organizations like the Bader Meinhof gang were organized by the KGB in that case and work with them and created great crises inside of European countries, kidnapping people and so on and so forth. When the first French uprising occurred, my view was, well, here go the French again. Let them enjoy themselves. I love a protest, but now I see many other countries in similar circles now. It actually takes quite a bit of effort to try to organize a mass protest. You know, a lot of people out in the streets constantly. The French one was huge. And to have it happen at the same time in multiple European countries, well, these are not without organization. So I suspect there is something behind it. Now, do I know this for certain? Only to the extent that it’s very hard to organize a mob to be in place at a certain place in time.
Christian Smith: George, let’s leave it there for this week’s podcast. Thanks very much. As always, thanks out there for listening. Make sure you go to geopoliticalfutures.com if you want. All the more analysis from Geopolitical Futures on everything that’s going on in the world right now. But we’ll see you again soon. Take care. Bye. Bye. Find all of our expert geopolitical analysis@geopoliticalfutures.com.
