In a recent expression of foreign policy, President Donald Trump openly criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while discussing Europe's role in placing peacekeeping troops in Ukraine.
The Daily Mail reported that during high-level U.S.-Russia talks, Trump blamed Zelensky for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, advocating for new leadership through elections as part of a peace plan.
Discussions between U.S. and Russian officials aimed at resolving the conflict commenced without Ukrainian participation, raising concerns about the exclusion of the war’s primary victim from negotiations.
These talks included important figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and Yuri Ushakov, an aide to Putin.
Trump voiced his criticisms from his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. Despite blaming Zelensky for the conflict, Trump professed a personal fondness for the Ukrainian leader. However, he emphasized that Zelensky's inability to prevent the war necessitated a reevaluation of Ukraine’s leadership.
Trump's remarks included harsh words for the handling of the war: “You should have ended it – three years, you should have never started it,” reflecting his perspective of mismanagement in Kyiv.
Zelensky quickly responded to Trump's comments and the lack of Ukrainian presence at the talks, insisting on Ukraine's right to participate in discussions that determine its future. His plea highlighted the broader frustrations of a nation left out of conversations that could decide its destiny.
Within the broader scope of these discussions, Trump and other U.S. officials explored potential cooperation with Russia on Arctic oil drilling.
Kirill Dmitriev from Russia's Direct Investment Fund noted that these talks also touched upon the possible return of U.S. oil majors to Russian projects, especially in Arctic exploration.
While these geopolitical maneuvers were underway, Kyiv experienced new drone attacks on February 17, 2025, further complicating the situation and demonstrating the urgent need for a stable resolution. Trump asserted, “And I think I have the power to end this war,” amidst discussions about stepping up European military presence through peacekeeping forces.
In advocating for new elections in Ukraine, Trump suggested that the current martial law and Zelensky’s dwindling approval ratings necessitated fresh democratic input from the Ukrainian populace. His notion that leadership change could be crucial for peace reflects an interventionist stance unusual in traditional diplomatic negotiations.
Meanwhile, Trump's critics accused him of parroting Russian positions. Sean Savett, a former Biden NSC spokesperson, accused him of buying into “Putin's propaganda,” emphasizing that Putin’s invasion was unprovoked and had inflicted significant suffering on Ukraine.
Despite the criticism, talks about U.S.-Russia cooperation moved forward. Discussions covered not just geopolitical concerns but also economic engagements like Arctic oil, emphasizing a multifaceted approach to U.S.-Russian relations during these efforts to end Ukraine's war.
The exclusion of Ukraine from these talks not only affects Zelensky’s leadership but also shifts the narrative surrounding the conflict.
Trump’s explicit support for potentially replacing Zelensky through elections under martial circumstances poses significant questions about the role international actors should play in national governance issues.
Lavrov's outright rejection of a British peacekeeping initiative further complicates the situation, revealing the tangled web of international diplomacy and its far-reaching implications on the ground.
The ongoing discourse surrounding these high-stakes negotiations mirrors the global challenge of addressing conflicts that extend beyond national borders, involving key decisions about sovereignty, leadership, and international law.