Trump’s attack on Zelenskyy: what’s happening and what should be done?
1. Trump’s goal. To impose the conclusion of a deal on his terms and under his personal guarantees for the period of his four-year term.
2. Target audience.
Trump's policy is aimed at supporters of isolationism, which has always had significant support among US citizens. That’s why Trump uses slogans about cutting costs, fighting corruption, and securing economic gains through foreign policy.
3. What kind of peace plan does Trump want to establish?
In fact, Trump has not yet announced any peace plan. This suggests that Trump is trying to conclude peace quickly, avoiding details and security guarantees. Regarding the war in Ukraine, Trump’s apparent idea is to freeze the demarcation line as the de facto front line. Such a cavalry-style approach, instead of a systemic solution, does not guarantee lasting peace.
4. Why such information aggression?
Discrediting Zelenskyy and the deliberately confrontational tone are intended to avoid personal communication and to shift the relationship from the level of personal responsibility to the level of personal emotions. Such manipulation and accusations of personal animosity against critics are tactics commonly used by Zelenskyy himself to avoid dialogue in Ukraine. If you want to talk, you have to meet my conditions, Trump signals.
5. Has Trump now limited real aid to Ukraine?
No. At the moment, all existing military aid programmes continue to operate but no new programmes are being approved. This suggests that Trump is trying to avoid an actual break at this point and to exert influence primarily through informational means. However, threats to limit aid have emerged among the US leadership, and this requires a comprehensive response from Ukraine.
6. Can Ukraine influence Trump and force him to change his position?
Yes. Trump is the president of a country where there is no telethon, and the government is forced to respond to criticism from the media and civil society, making it necessary to remain flexible. With regard to the war in Israel, for example, isolationism is not working – Trump is not raising allegations of embezzlement of financial aid, not demanding concessions, but rather increasing the supply of weapons and funding.
7. What should the Ukrainian government do?
Firstly, the president of Ukraine must show that he is not a dictator and that he has the support of the country through a strategy that is approved by the majority of the people and their representatives. On the eve of the Russian invasion, Zelenskyy gathered the leaders of parliamentary factions to secure support and form a common position. Now, however, Zelenskyy is no longer pursuing this, and it significantly weakens Ukraine's authority. Yes, it is necessary to work jointly with the opposition (but not with the OPFL (Opposition Platform – For Life)) on this issue.
Secondly, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief should address the defenders of Ukraine in this critical period and announce immediate steps to strengthen military defence capabilities. The confidence of brigade and battalion commanders in the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the high command of the defence forces must be reinforced, given the challenging situation at the front and in politics. All available financial resources of the state should not be diverted to populism but should be allocated to funding the army, which is fighting under critical conditions. Once again, I draw attention to the failure of the drone programme, and all the best-performing drone units should receive at least minimal funding for drones and ammunition. Yesterday's statement by the Ministry of Defence on the amount of funding for FPV drones is not a comprehensive solution; I will write about this later.
Thirdly, the accusations of restrictions on freedom of speech and dictatorship should be refuted by establishing a Presidential Council on the Protection of Freedom of Speech, cancelling the controversial telethon, and holding a press conference with Ukrainian journalists. And at least once, the president should try to answer honestly, politely, and without loutishness, giving journalists a clear explanation of his position.
Fourthly, corruption allegations should be refuted by ending attempts to discredit anti-corruption NGOs and journalists and by dismissing at least the most notorious corrupt figures, such as Kamyshyn and Smetanin, in the defence sector. It is essential to demonstrate that although problems exist, there will be a decisive response.
Fifthly, professional diplomats should be involved in the work on the president's statements on foreign policy because the texts that Yermak and Lytvyn write to Zelenskyy in response to Trump's accusations that Zelenskyy's rating is not small but large are just kindergarten and a complete misunderstanding of the situation. It is necessary to respond not on behalf of an individual but on behalf of the state, emphasizing that the president's position is grounded in the stance of state institutions and society.
Sixthly, we need a strategy for communicating our position in the US media, civil society's advocacy in support of Ukraine, Yermak is simply not capable of doing this, we need people who can listen to others, not themselves, and who can work with public opinion. It is crucial to explain to American voters the consequences of reducing aid to Ukraine and to mobilize all active supporters of Ukraine.
I am confident that even under such pressure, Ukraine can become stronger, more united, and more resilient. Our people possess the will, awareness, and resources necessary. We have every opportunity to win the war for independence and safeguard the existence of the Ukrainian nation.
