The ‘strong’ versus the ‘weak’ Former Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev explains the shortcomings and risks of Trump’s ‘Ukraine peace’ and the perils of European indecision

On February 18, Russian and American negotiators met in the capital of Saudi Arabia to begin discussions on a “settlement” in Ukraine. At the meeting, officials agreed to normalize relations and prepare a summit between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Ukrainian representatives were not invited to Riyadh (Volodymyr Zelensky even suggested that the meeting might have included an “ultimatum” to Kyiv). A day earlier, European leaders gathered in Paris to discuss their role in resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the crisis following American criticism of Europe at last weekend’s Munich Security Conference.

Meduza spoke with Boris Bondarev, a former Russian Foreign Ministry official, about the significance of past Russian-American negotiations in the context of developments under the Trump administration. He also speculated on what Ukraine might do next.

— What do you think about the circumstances of the negotiations? How does it look to someone like you, a former Russian Foreign Ministry official who spent years observing diplomatic protocol and all its long-standing rules?

— I’m looking at the pictures from [Riyadh] right now, and they did it all by the book! They’re sitting at the table, the table is decorated with flowers, and everyone has water bottles and some folders in front of them. At the head of the table are the Saudis, the hosts of the event. [U.S. Secretary of State Marco] Rubio is making some goofy face, while [Russian presidential aide Yuri] Ushakov is eyeing him slyly. I think they got acquainted, discussed how to organize the presidential summit, sized each other up, and assessed.

Protocol is just the rules for behavior at the table — where the delegations sit, how many people are there, and who starts the conversation. It has nothing to do with politics. But if you’re asking about Russia and the U.S. deciding Ukraine’s fate — this isn’t the first time in world history that the strong decide for those they consider weak.

For Russian diplomacy, this is a major success that didn’t cost it anything — well, aside from the fact that the war has been going on for three years. But we don’t typically dwell on such losses. It turned out all we had to do was hold out, continuing to act from a position of strength. You keep doing what you’re doing — and in the process, you force the other side, which fears escalation and prioritizes its own comfort, to come to you humbly to find out what you want. And that’s exactly what’s happening now: The West has abruptly and hastily reached the point of pleading for Putin’s mercy.

— Meanwhile, Trump and his team frame what’s happening as the administration’s diplomatic triumph.

— The only question is why, just two months ago, it was in America’s national interest to counter Russia, but now their interests have made a complete U-turn. I believe [the new administration’s policy shift] may have resulted from the foolish idea circulating for years in Republicans’ minds that “Russia must be torn from China” so their friendship doesn’t threaten America’s plans to contain Beijing.

But Trump’s method won’t work. Russia will stay with China regardless because China is reliable and doesn’t demand anything from Putin. In America, a new president could come in tomorrow and once again declare that Putin isn’t democratic enough. That’s the first problem.

Second, Trump is currently destroying his own allies [in Europe], eroding his support, and behaving like a bull in a china shop. And it’s unclear what kind of success he expects to achieve here. Because to an external observer — to China or India, for example — what’s happening looks like the U.S. surrendering its positions and withdrawing from a bunch of regions where it used to be present. That will harm American business. The Chinese will move in, business will be conducted under Chinese rules, Americans will have to spend more to compete, their profits will shrink, and they’ll pay less in taxes… The American global economy is closely tied to its political presence in every corner of the world — that’s why they’re considered a superpower.

— Is it even possible to decide Ukraine’s fate without representatives from Kyiv, through negotiations between Russia and the U.S. alone?

— That depends on Ukraine. If Ukraine agrees to it, then it’s possible. If it doesn’t, then it’s not. That said, Trump believes Ukraine won’t be able to do anything without American aid, which gives him leverage: If the Ukrainians push back, he’ll cut off their support. The end.

But Trump has no leverage over Putin! Putin is convinced that he has already won and will get what he wants — whether Trump is involved or not. For Putin, the meeting in Riyadh is the first sign that he’s on the home stretch.

So, Trump can make a bunch of concessions now and, in the end, please pardon my language, fuck it all up. Because Putin will simply play him for a fool and do nothing in return. He’ll just sit back and wait for more concessions from the U.S. The more you have, the more you want. Even if Trump hands over Ukraine and Eastern Europe, it won’t be enough.

And if [Europe] doesn’t start pumping Ukraine with weapons and doesn’t drop its toothless Biden-era, now wild-man Trump-era, approaches for something effective, Putin will just grind down the Ukrainian resistance with his frontline convicts and alcoholics. And then he’ll move to push back NATO. And he’ll succeed, because Europe has completely bankrupted itself — politically, morally, militarily, in every possible sense. They are incapable of independent action — even before their emergency summit in Paris, [French President Emmanuel] Macron called Trump and said, “Sorry, Donald, that we’re discussing something without you.” At least call afterward and say, “We’ve thought it over and decided to tell you Americans to shove it.”

It’s a major question why the Americans believe they can mediate a war that, according to Putin, is being fought against the Americans themselves. After all, Russia constantly says its primary adversary is the U.S. and that the U.S. is waging war on Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.

— According to Zelensky, the Ukrainian side was not aware of the planned negotiations in Saudi Arabia. How does that align with international norms? Do any international agreements stipulate that a country under attack must be included in negotiations?

— No, there’s no such rule. Negotiations are always a unique event. Every negotiation happens at a specific time and place, with specific questions and specific participants.

— Can international organizations, like the U.N., influence the course of the negotiations?

— At the moment, probably not. International organizations are just associations of states bound by agreements. If states can’t reach an agreement among themselves, neither can international organizations.

— Let’s talk about Europe, which was also not invited to these negotiations. How could that happen? For example, according to Armin Papperger, the head of the arms manufacturer Rheinmetall, it’s Europe’s own fault that it’s been “sat at the kids’ table” for these talks on Ukraine. Papperger said it’s because Europe spent decades underinvesting in its own defense.

— They weren’t invited, and that’s that. Europe swallowed it. Europe cries, it whines, it wrings its hands — and it does nothing. So who even needs them? What good are they?

Europe has always been in America’s shadow — and they were fine with that. They didn’t want to invest in developing their defense industry, they didn’t want to buy new weapons, and they moaned and groaned about supplying weapons to Ukraine. This was the same [German Chancellor] Scholz who drove everyone crazy with his [long-range] Taurus missiles: “We’ll send just 10 to Ukraine, otherwise it’s escalation.” Sure, Europe helped Ukraine — but there was no system, no vision, no strategy, and no plan.

And now it turns out that European countries can’t do anything at all without the U.S. For decades, they wanted a comfortable life and kept cozying up to Russia — buying its gas, sending Moscow huge amounts of money, always hoping the Americans would step in to bail them out if needed. It was a childish, infantile position. And now the Americans don’t want to bail them out.

— Even before the negotiations, Ukraine was subjected to outright blackmail by the U.S.: On February 12, Zelensky was presented with a draft agreement that effectively granted America the right to half of Ukraine’s natural resources. Zelensky refused to sign it. What do you think about such U.S. tactics?

— I don’t know what Trump is expecting — that Ukraine will agree to become an American vassal? And at the same time, security guarantees are supposed to come from Europe, which can’t even guarantee its own security? It seems like Trump’s megalomania talking. Or maybe he’s deliberately making impossible demands so he can later say, “See, we made them an offer, and they refused. And you still expect us to help them?”

It’s all pretty ugly. On the other hand, at least it’s honest. And we’ve grown unaccustomed to honesty in politics in recent years. We’ve gotten used to being offered all sorts of “ugly” deals under the banner of “values,” “defending democracy,” and all that crap. Iraq was torn apart “in defense of democracy.” Afghanistan and Libya — same story. And now they’re just saying it openly.

— U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already said Ukraine returning to its pre-2014 borders and joining NATO are unrealistic goals. Meanwhile, Trump has said he would be happy to see Russia return to the G7. In your view, what’s driving the U.S. — or Trump personally — when they basically “give away” the whole game to Russia like this?

— Trump wants Russia to play nice and pull away from China. But he doesn’t seem to think in strategic terms at all. He wants some grand gesture that will make everyone gasp in awe, but he doesn’t really know what exactly that would take. He’s probably relying on his instincts, waiting for some kind of epiphany. Meanwhile, Trump has an inherent psychological aversion to Zelensky because he’s standing in the way of his beautiful new friendship with Putin. One old man wants to chat with another old man — and some youngster keeps getting in the way.

— So, what options does Ukraine have?

— It’s up to Ukraine to decide what to do. The situation is difficult but not entirely hopeless. Zelensky just visited Turkey — he was discussing something there, maybe trying to find an ally, to get [President] Erdogan interested. Don’t forget that the Americans remain unpredictable right now. And Europe might still manage to come up with something.

For example, Ukraine could refuse to go along with [the Trump administration’s push for a ceasefire by Easter]. That would give Kyiv leverage over Trump: If he wants a truce so badly, he’d have to make some concessions to Ukraine. And if he does that, then Putin will start acting up. In other words, Trump’s approach is risky for him personally — it puts him in an uncomfortable position.

Ukrainians must decide what they want. If it’s to keep their freedom, then, apparently, they’ll need to continue fighting. If they’ve seen enough death and lost hope, they need to negotiate for the best possible terms.

When they were attacked from both sides in 1939, the Poles decided to fight until they were completely broken. They could have surrendered immediately, and the end result would have been exactly the same. But at least this way, they could look themselves in the mirror. Right now, I think Ukrainians can feel the same way.