Andriy Zagorodnyuk
Last week, the world witnessed a contentious, on-camera Oval Office confrontation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, U.S. President Donald Trump, and U.S. Vice President JD Vance. What began as a relatively standard exchange quickly escalated into an unprecedented public dispute. Yet when stripped of emotion, these core disagreements have been clear for some time: Must Ukraine accept ending the war no matter the terms, or does it have the ability to influence them? Can it expect any long-term security commitments to guard against future Russian aggression, or does it have no option but to unconditionally halt its operations? And if Kyiv refuses to comply and the United States withdraws support—as the Trump administration has reportedly begun doing this week—can Ukraine survive on its own?
Even before the meeting, the White House had made clear its position: Ukraine has no leverage and therefore no ability to set conditions. Zelensky, of course, has firmly rejected this conclusion. For Ukrainians, ending the war is undoubtedly a welcome goal. And after three years of brutal fighting, previous strategies—including those pursued by prior administrations—have failed to open a clear path to peace. While Western assistance has been crucial to Ukraine’s survival, restrictions on the range and use of weapons have led to an infantry-centric war of attrition that has severely strained Ukrainian forces and offered no clear route to victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment