Criticism of Trump’s appeasement of Russia still premature.

After the United States suspended military assistance and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, the country’s energy infrastructure has come under the largest-scale attack by the Russian military since the start of the war, while the situation on the Kurzsk battlefield is quickly changing. Some attribute this to President Trump’s failed policy on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but from the broader perspective of promoting peace between Russia and Ukraine, there seem to be different interpretations.

On March 10th, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that if US and Ukrainian officials achieve success at a crucial meeting in Saudi Arabia, the US will lift the ban on providing weapons and intelligence sharing to Ukraine as soon as March 11th. Pompeo emphasized that the White House must first assess what concessions Kyiv is willing to make before resuming military assistance, stating that Ukraine must be “ready to do difficult things, just as the Russians would.” He said, “I think the concept of pausing assistance in broad terms is that we can solve the problem. Obviously, what will happen next will be crucial.”

Ukrainian President Zelensky will meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on March 11th (Tuesday), but will not attend the talks with the US team. The meeting will be attended by Ukrainian President’s Adviser Andriy Yermak, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, and Deputy Chief of the Presidential Office Pavlo Palisa. On March 9th, Zelensky stated that Ukraine will be “fully committed to constructive dialogue,” saying, “We hope to achieve results that will bring peace closer and continue to provide support.”

The primary agenda of the Jeddah talks is for the US to lift the freeze on military aid to Ukraine and resume battlefield intelligence sharing. On March 9th, when asked if he would consider lifting the ban on sharing intelligence with Ukraine, Trump stated, “We’ve pretty much done that. We hope to do all we can to get Ukraine to seriously accomplish something.” He also expressed optimism about the upcoming talks with Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia, saying, “I believe that we will make great progress this week.”

Trump, over the weekend, when asked about the progress of the negotiations by the media, stated, “I think we will have good results in Saudi Arabia… we have a lot of excellent people going.” “I think Ukraine will do well, and I think Russia will also do well. I think this week might bring some big developments. I hope so.”

The US and Ukraine enter the critical Jeddah talks with different goals. The US seems eager to see what concessions Kyiv will make to end the war, while Ukraine’s main goal is to regain US military assistance and intelligence sharing before reaching any agreement. If the goals of the US and Ukraine clash at these talks, it will be challenging for both sides to push forward the next steps, and the outcome may not be what those hoping for a quick peace want to see.

In fact, Ukraine does not need to rush to argue over the final outcome of peace negotiations. From the current trend of the peace process, at least three factors make Ukraine’s choice of a final position or decision seem hasty.

Firstly, the current situation remains full of uncertainty. Although the war has been ongoing for over three years, many factors still remain unresolved.

Trump has repeatedly urged Ukraine to make concessions to end the war but has not publicly demanded similar concessions from Russia. It is currently unclear if future agreements will require Moscow to make concessions. However, US officials have stated that the agreement is essentially a security guarantee, as Americans will engage in on-the-ground work in Ukraine through a mineral agreement. This means there may be some demands not yet made to Russia.

Furthermore, many factors may be uncertain for Ukraine, such as Trump not announcing what specific sacrifices Ukraine will have to make, including ceding territory or relinquishing national sovereignty, or even disclosing the final negotiated framework. Therefore, it is premature to say whether Trump is leaning towards or abandoning Ukraine in favor of Russia.

During this period, the biggest question from the outside world is the US’s suspension of intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a measure that has severely impacted Ukraine on the Kurzsk battlefield. However, the US seems to have adjusted to this, with Trump stating that the ban on intelligence sharing is almost no longer in effect. Moreover, Trump also stated that in response to Russia’s heavy attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, there will be financial and trade sanctions on Russia. This indicates that Trump is not siding solely with Russia against Ukraine.

The actual negotiation process is currently difficult to predict and unexpected situations may arise, potentially leading to major reversals. This means that prematurely drawing conclusions or getting stuck on an uncertain negotiation outcome before negotiations reach their final stage might cause Ukraine to miss out on future opportunities to achieve peace and constrain its negotiating space.

Secondly, trust in the US and Western allies remains a strong support for Ukraine. Since the outbreak of the war, US and European assistance to Ukraine has been crucial for Ukraine to counter Russia, both militarily and economically and diplomatically; the US and Western allies have stood by Ukraine. This support is unlikely to completely break or suddenly reverse during the peace negotiation stage. Ukraine has reasons to believe that Western countries will continue to play a role in military and diplomatic aspects and uphold their support for Ukraine.

The crucial question is whether the US will maintain a fair position towards Ukraine in peace negotiations. If unfair, that is, forcing Ukraine to surrender completely and giving Russia everything it wants, then it would not be too late for Zelensky to swear to “never surrender and fight to the end,” and the West would also voice opposition to such an outcome. The issue is that such a move does not seem to benefit US interests, and it could lead to losing European strategic partners, which is clearly not a wise option, giving the US no reason to do so.

Thirdly, whether Russia will make compromises remains an uncertainty in the peace process. Any form of peace entails both sides making concessions, which applies equally to Ukraine and Russia. If Russia is willing to compromise and reaches conditions acceptable to the US, Western allies, and Ukraine, then peace could be achieved through negotiations. If Russia is unwilling to make any concessions, as seen in Putin’s ongoing tough stance, unwilling to meet the conditions for “removing the root causes of the war,” then they will not sit at the negotiation table, meaning peace cannot be achieved through negotiations, and the war will continue. Currently, the Kremlin still displays high hostility and a hardline stance, showing that Russia is unlikely to change its position in the short term. Even if Russia presents some softened conditions, it depends on whether these conditions meet the minimum requirements of the US, Ukraine, and a fair position. Therefore, the possibility of the negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the US collapsing still exists.

Trump is keen on expediting peace, and in the event of failed diplomatic efforts, he still has the option to strengthen support for Ukraine, putting more pressure on Russia on the battlefield to force concessions at the negotiation table. It is not ruled out that through further increasing economic sanctions on Russia and military support for Ukraine, Russia would be compelled to compromise and achieve peace in a short time. This is also why Trump emphasizes that Russia and Ukraine have no choice but to achieve peace. Of course, “peace through war” is not the outcome Trump desires.

Recently, by pressuring Ukraine through the suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing, Trump has indeed had a certain negative impact on Ukraine’s military actions and the battlefield situation. However, these measures have also prompted the Ukrainian government to engage more sincerely in the peace process. Zelensky, under external pressure, may abandon some unrealistic fantasies and focus more on peaceful dialogue.

At the same time, this has led European countries to realize the severity of the situation and begin to take on more defense responsibilities, reducing dependence on the US, which will have far-reaching implications for Europe’s future security. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte stated that Europe needs to “increase spending to ensure security.” He said, “We also need to quickly ramp up defense production on both sides of the Atlantic.” “We need ammunition, warships, tanks, jets, as well as satellites and drones. Our output has been too low for too long.”

In conclusion, Ukraine needs to maintain greater resilience. The policy orientation of the Trump administration, whether through pressure or support, requires further observation. If Ukraine’s diplomatic strategy can maintain greater flexibility, it may lead to an acceptable outcome. The key issue is whether Ukraine can militarily withstand this difficult period.