Summary
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Russia must withdraw to its pre-invasion positions from February 24, 2022.
In an interview with Newsmax, he hoped that Donald Trump, with European backing, could end the war and influence Putin.
Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine will not accept any negotiated settlement that excludes its involvement.
He also suggested that Trump needs a diplomatic success to differentiate his approach from Biden’s. However, there is no indication that Russia is willing to retreat.
How about to 2013 line?
Unfortunately unlikely, considering American support is now in the hands of Putin’s puppet.
I don’t think that Russia would be giving up Crimea in any case, regardless of who’s in the Whitehouse. The Donbas is a different question, they probably would’ve been prepared to give them back in whole or in part in negotiations, but I don’t think Crimea would’ve ever been up for negotiations.
In pre-2022 positions, Crimea could be strangled; it’s difficult to supply. Unfortunately, 2022 borders are only likely to be restored by negotiation, with US help unlikely, and not military success.
this was was always going to end with Russia taking a large chunk of Ukraine. there was some collective delusion for a while that it wasn’t because of strong state war propaganda
but Russia is always going to care more about Ukraine than the US. It’s their neighbor who they have more or less controlled directly or indirectly for hundreds of years.
US support was always limited and self-interested. Just like every time US hypes up some international ally to inevitably discard them. Remember the Kurds? I’m guessing Taiwan is the next one going forward
That would be best. Definitely.
Removed by mod
[removed by mod] for an opinion. Wow.
It isn’t an opinion it is a straight lie.
Yeah, all of those “disgruntled citizens” starting a coup in eastern Ukraine with russian equipment were later confirmed to be Russian mercenaries.
In the end it all comes down to this: Russia will attack any country that was allied with them, but now wants to move away from that.
I’m a lone voice crying out in the wilderness.
Edit: And to think Boris Johnson told Zelensky not to accept a peace agreement in 2022 when Russia was willing to let Zelensky sit at the table. Now the Ukrainians don’t even get to attend the peace talks, no doubt because the Russians know that it’s the British and the Americans who give Zelensky his orders. Blame whoever you want, the Ukrainians really did it to themselves.
No you’re just a russian tool for spewing that bullshit.
It would be nice if that was true because in that case nobody could hear your bullshit
I wish.
We would much prefer you walk into the woods and scream where nobody can hear you.
The chessboard’s lines blur when leaders mistake desperation for strategy. Zelenskyy’s demand for Russia to retreat to pre-invasion borders is less a roadmap than a plea wrapped in geopolitical theater—knowing full well Putin’s playbook doesn’t include rewinding clocks. Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism, betting on a man whose transactional whims could pivot faster than a TikTok trend.
The subtext? Ukraine’s survival now hinges on American electoral drama, where “success” is just another campaign slogan. Europe’s support here feels like a stage prop, all optics and no spine. Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table? That’s not diplomacy—it’s surrender by committee.
Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism
Trump brokering a deal is not negotiable, he’s going to do it for the simple reason that he sees himself as the best deal-maker, the best negotiator, the best. It would be futile to try to stop him, and it doesn’t hurt Ukraine’s position that he try, so why the hell would they attempt to stop him.
There’s basically two outcomes, here: Trump thinks Putin is nuts when it comes to demands, Trump still wants to look good domestically, so he’s doubling down on Ukraine support. Then, Trump thinks Putin is in a strong position, he tries to dictate terms to Ukraine, but will fail. US support may or may not stop after that, depending on how he can spin it domestically, in any case Europe is there to have Ukraine’s back.
This decision point – is Trump going to squeeze a deal that’s acceptable for Ukraine out of Putin – has to be awaited before Ukraine can move, because otherwise you’re pissing Trump off and making the US pull out instead of double down more likely.
tl;dr: It’s strategically opportune to hold Trump’s beer right now, you might not believe he can get anything out of Putin but you got to let him try, and fail, on his own.
Trump’s self-image as the “best deal-maker” is precisely the problem. His deals are transactional theater, not strategy. He doesn’t broker peace; he brokers leverage—for himself. Ukraine’s survival isn’t a stage for his ego or America’s domestic optics; it’s existential. Betting on Trump isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous.
Your two outcomes ignore a third: Trump undermines Ukraine to curry favor with Putin, framing it as “peace.” Europe might have Ukraine’s back, but Trump’s America-first rhetoric would leave Kyiv holding the bag. The US pulling out isn’t a threat—it’s a gift to Russia.
Strategic opportunism? No, it’s capitulation dressed as pragmatism. Letting Trump “try and fail” risks lives, sovereignty, and global stability. Ukraine can’t afford to be someone’s PR stunt.
How, in your mind, would Ukraine go about stopping Trump from doing whatever he’s going to do in Saudi Arabia, and what would be the costs?
Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of stopping Trump or anyone else—it’s not about controlling his actions but surviving the fallout. If Trump cozies up to Saudi Arabia or Russia, Ukraine’s best move is to double down on alliances with Europe and any U.S. factions still committed to its sovereignty.
The cost? Likely higher dependence on European support and a brutal recalibration of strategy to counteract waning American backing. But the alternative—appeasing Trump’s whims—is worse. It risks turning Ukraine into a bargaining chip in his transactional games, where sovereignty is just another line item on a deal sheet.
Ukraine’s survival hinges on resilience, not waiting for foreign leaders to act rationally. Betting otherwise is playing Russian roulette—literally.
Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of stopping Trump or anyone else
So why would they try? Why are you characterising them not attempting the impossible as “banking on Trump”?
Noone but MAGA has Trump as Plan A, B, and C.
Ukraine’s Plan A here is dictated by happenstance: Gotta wait for Trump because he’s gotta have his try. Plan B is going it alone with Europe. Plan C is their own military production. Plan D is partisan warfare. Ukraine is prepared for all of them.
They should have a plan E, which should actually be plan A, and dust off those old nuclear designs and build a bomb.
Why would you think Ukraine is banking on Trump? That’s not strategy—it’s survival instinct. They’re not playing a chess game where every piece moves in perfect order; they’re scrambling to keep the board from flipping entirely.
Your “Plan A, B, C” framework assumes Ukraine has the luxury of options. They don’t. Every “plan” you outlined depends on external powers acting in good faith, which history shows is a laughable gamble. Europe might step up, but only after dragging its feet through bureaucratic sludge. The U.S.? A partisan circus.
Ukraine isn’t waiting for Trump or anyone else to save them—they’re hedging against betrayal while clinging to sovereignty. Pretending otherwise oversimplifies a geopolitical nightmare into a bad flowchart.
Why would you think Ukraine is banking on Trump?
I don’t. You implied they do:
Zelenskyy’s demand for Russia to retreat to pre-invasion borders is less a roadmap than a plea wrapped in geopolitical theater—knowing full well Putin’s playbook doesn’t include rewinding clocks. Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism, betting on a man whose transactional whims could pivot faster than a TikTok trend.
If you did not want to be interpreted that way, may I suggest not using language such as “reeks of tactical nihilism” right after criticising Zelensky’s approach.
What he’s actually doing here is framing what “success” and “failure” means for Trump’s initiative, “If Trump can’t get this then it was a failure”. The point itself (pre-Feb-2022 lines) is rather unlikely in practical terms, it’s chosen so that a) Putin will not accept it, he wants way more and b) It is not Ukraine’s maximum position, either, so that afterwards it cannot be said “Ukraine could have had peace if they were only reasonable and realistic”.
There’s also a reason Zelensky only talked about “Russia must withdraw to”, not “Russia can keep”. Sounds more like “If Russia withdraws there, we can start talking about exchanging the rest for Kursk”. They’re establishing the desired framing of the Trump negotiations without giving up anything, even if Trump should succeed in pressuring Putin.
Now I don’t want to imply that Zelensky is running circles around both Trump and Putin when it comes to 4D chess. It’s not the man, it’s his whole administration. They’ve gobsmacked me more than once.
Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table?
Really makes one question the narrative of the defensive war in favour of the proxy war between Russia and US doesn’t it?
deleted by creator
Why do I write like this? Because the world is drowning in oversimplified soundbites and hollow platitudes, and someone has to cut through the noise. If you think clarity or depth is pretentious, that says more about your expectations than my delivery.
Intelligence isn’t a performance—it’s a tool to dissect the absurdity of geopolitics, propaganda, and transactional leaders who treat diplomacy like a poker game. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s time to ask why mediocrity feels so familiar.
fuck putin!
Zelenskyy giving interviews to propaganda outlets like Newsmax, especially in giving in to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in peace talk negotiation, is just dealing into Russia’s hand. Trump’s odd pandering to Putin means that Zelenskyy should be spending his time wheeling and dealing with as many European politicians as possible, since Trump will take Russian bribes in a minute over recognizing the illegality, authoritarianism, and ethnic cleansing associated with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the countless war crimes that it has perpetuated in the process.
Zelenskyy knows that Europe does not have the money or political will to see this through if the US backs off. Realistically this is a discussion between the US and Russia, with Europe and Ukraine being a peanut gallery. Without Russia, no war. Without the US, no Ukraine.
For someone that demanded the 2014 borders for the past few years, this is a concession. Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine even if Russia has to stop where they are for a few years and repeat the 2014 playbook. It’s very surprising Russia hasn’t been able to push past the current positions. However, they are close to taking certain important cities and the highways.
Another possibility is if Ukraine has elections and chooses another pro Russian president. Then you would have the largest army in Europe equipped with Western weapons potentially switch sides and on to other former USSR states.
Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine
That doesn’t make any sense. Russia knows it can’t control Ukrainian-majority areas in any meaningful way. This war isn’t a war of annexation and expansionism, it’s a proxy war between Russia and the US in which Russia is showing its neighbouring countries that it won’t simply allow its influence sphere to disintegrate.
Not according to Putin, who has stated multiple times that Ukraine isn’t really a country and Russia owns it.
“Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.” Since then, Putin has repeated similar claims on many occasions. As recently as February 2020, he once again stated in an interview that Ukrainians and Russians “are one and the same people”, and he insinuated that Ukrainian national identity had emerged as a product of foreign interference."
