Trump’s game with Zelenskyy’s psyche
The city of Istanbul recently hosted negotiations between representatives of Russia and Ukraine aimed at finding a solution to end the ongoing war. While it was expected that Russian President Vladimir Putin would personally attend, the Kremlin announced at the last moment that he would not be part of the Russian delegation. U.S. President Donald Trump, whose attendance was also speculated, refrained from traveling to Turkey. In contrast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as previously stated, personally participated in the Istanbul talks.
As anticipated, the Istanbul negotiations, rather than becoming a turning point for ending the Ukraine war, turned into a platform that further complicated peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv. Trump and his allies welcome this complexity, as a clearer ceasefire negotiation process would limit the White House’s leverage and Trump’s ability to pressure European NATO members.
Consequently, despite Zelenskyy and the Europeans’ public statements about the failed Istanbul talks, their anger is primarily directed at Trump. Some informal media and political speculations in the West suggest prior coordination between the U.S. and Russian presidents regarding their absence from the Istanbul talks, which aligns with recent developments.
Zelenskyy, on one hand, seeks a direct meeting with Putin, while on the other, he considers Russia’s withdrawal from eastern Ukraine a precondition for any ceasefire agreement. Undoubtedly, Putin will not accede to such demands under current circumstances. Meanwhile, Trump aims to maximize security and economic gains from the murky waters created during the Biden era.
The primary losers of the Istanbul talks are Zelenskyy and European actors—countries that have willingly turned Europe into a dangerous and bloody battlefield. Europe now finds itself cornered, precisely as Trump desires. Marginalizing Zelenskyy and the Europeans involved in the Ukraine war allows the White House to pursue its demands from other NATO members with greater leverage and pragmatism.
In this equation, the anger of Ukrainians and Europeans matters little to Trump and his allies. It’s no surprise that upon arriving at Istanbul’s airport, Zelenskyy described the low-level Russian delegation sent to the peace conference as “fake and performative.” However, even more performative was the meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Ukrainian counterpart in Antalya, Turkey. During this discussion, the Ukrainian side shared its “peace vision,” but it received no positive response from Rubio.
The main losers of the Istanbul talks
As noted, the Ukrainian government and European countries (which proposed a 30-day ceasefire) are the primary losers of the Istanbul talks. Undoubtedly, Zelenskyy and the Europeans’ first failure stems from battlefield losses and the dwindling resilience of Ukrainian public opinion and citizens toward continuing the conflict. This resilience has now reached its lowest point.
According to a survey conducted last year by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, nearly 60% of Ukrainians believed Ukraine should continue negotiating with Russia to resolve the conflict. However, with Trump’s rise to power in the U.S., Ukrainian citizens’ tolerance for continuing the war has decreased, while their desire for peace with Russia has grown.
In June of last year, according to a survey by the Ukrainian outlet Zerkalo Nedeli, less than 44% of Ukrainians supported Kyiv negotiating with Moscow. But now, a different dynamic has emerged on the battlefield and beyond, which is certainly not in favor of Zelenskyy or NATO’s European actors. From the outset, many European actors and countries warned about Trump’s return to the White House and its impact on the Ukraine war’s dynamics, and now those warnings have materialized. Thus, the failure of the Istanbul talks is bad news for Ukrainian citizens and further highlights the role of European actors as interventionist and obstructive players in their minds.
Trump, Marco Rubio, and other American politicians have repeatedly imposed their demands for a ceasefire on Zelenskyy. It seems the Ukrainian president has little choice but to comply with Washington’s demands, as from the beginning, Kyiv transformed itself from an independent actor in Europe and the international system into a pawn in the White House’s geopolitical game.
The severe consequences of this blind game have now ensnared Ukraine’s embattled president. Meanwhile, the Europeans’ artificial efforts to prop up the Istanbul talks (mostly behind the scenes before the negotiations began) have failed to rescue Ukraine from its current deadlock. The tangible outcome of the Istanbul talks has been a tightening of this knot.
Abandoning the dream of NATO membership
Another tangible outcome of the Istanbul talks is the complete abandonment of Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump intends to impose a ceasefire agreement on Kyiv that would commit Ukraine to not joining NATO.
In other words, whether the current war continues or not, Ukraine has no chance of becoming a new NATO member. This is despite the fact that the Ukraine war was initially triggered by the insistence of both sides of the Atlantic on NATO’s eastward expansion. Kyiv believed that playing the West’s game would complete the strategic encirclement of Russia. Trump’s presence in the White House has reduced Ukraine’s chances of joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to zero.