Ukrainian military expert: Trump sides with the aggressor

From the Obozrevatel:

"Trump defends the aggressor's position, Ukraine urgently needs a plan "B": interview with military expert Olexiy Melnyk 

Tetiana Gaizhevskaya, December 6, 2025 

- ...How likely is it that the US will continue to pressure Ukraine without putting pressure on Russia?  

Unfortunately, we've seen this time and again. In October, when Trump imposed powerful sanctions against Russian oil companies, there was reason to cautiously conclude that he had finally figured it all out and would now act in the right direction. But once again, we see that the weather vane has turned the other way. In the context of what's happening during our conversation and the negotiation process, a major question arises. We don't know what was going on behind closed doors, but we can very likely guess, since Putin has repeated before and since that Moscow has no intention of abandoning its maximalist positions, that Moscow intends to fight not only with Ukraine. He is already openly threatening Europe.

What can the Ukrainian and American delegations discuss now? This is starting to look more like negotiations in which one side is defending the aggressor's position. The situation is very complex. 

How far can Trump push the issue? Amid all this negativity, there's one positive aspect: the United States is now selling weapons. Considering that Trump has essentially based his entire foreign policy on commercial interests, whether those of the United States or his own family, this factor may ultimately outweigh the other: American arms manufacturers must make a profit. And this is precisely the huge market where they can do just that. That's one thing. 

But on the other hand, there are signs that Trump's personal financial interests may sometimes outweigh national financial interests. His son-in-law was present at the talks, and reports have emerged that not only the Russian-Ukrainian war but also potential cooperation between the two countries were discussed. Therefore, there are also strong suspicions that Kushner may have been promised something to convince his father-in-law that the losses of American arms companies are not as important as the potential gains promised to him, either by Dmitriev or by Putin personally. This cannot be ruled out...

 

It's worth remembering that we already experienced a seven-month period in 2023-2024, when Trump himself blocked aid to Ukraine. And after Trump became president, we experienced several waves of blocking intelligence sharing and arms deliveries. So, we have experience. The only thing we need now is to start preparing for this worst-case scenario as soon as possible. 

 

- Please note that the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine are being conducted between only three parties: the United States, Ukraine, and Russia. Europe is absent altogether. What can and should Europe's position be on this issue? Should it insist on its participation in these negotiations? And could it simply increase military aid to Ukraine so that we don't have to worry about what will happen if we lose US military aid? 

 

First of all, when we talk about the current negotiating format, there should be two warring parties and an independent mediator. But it seems to me that Ukrainians often see Americans on the other side of the virtual negotiating table. What Witkoff is saying, what Trump periodically relays, are purely Russian positions—that is, attempts to accommodate Russia's wishes as much as possible while simultaneously pressuring the Ukrainian side. 

 

We have a well-founded feeling that we are trying to negotiate peace with both a mediator and an aggressor. It's a paradox. These aren't three sides. Essentially, Ukraine is pitted against two of the world's most powerful states, nuclear powers and members of the UN Security Council. This is an extremely disadvantageous position. 

 

As for Europe, firstly, the unity and cohesion they declare is nonexistent in practice. I'm not even mentioning the role of Orbán or Slovakian Prime Minister Fico. Even within Europe, debates are currently underway over the seized Russian assets. All this demonstrates that Europe has its own share of contradictions and a lack of political will and understanding of the seriousness of the threat looming over it from the opportunities afforded to Russia to continue this war and achieve success.

 

Does Europe still have reserves? If we're talking purely about material resources, Europe has already depleted all its existing stockpiles. Yes, military production is increasing. This year, we've already reached a million shells per year, but—let's face it—Russia itself is already producing 5 million. Plus what it openly receives from North Korea. There are also suspicions that China is quietly helping...

 

Therefore, what Europe can and should do now is provide political support to Ukraine, take a more active stance in dialogue with the US administration, using the opportunities available at the individual and institutional levels. And, ultimately, provide some kind of adequate financial cushion for Ukraine. Because Ukraine's current budget, all that Ukraine collects in taxes, is only half of the budget. If the other half is critically reduced, Russia's chances of winning this war of attrition will increase."