From the Obozrevatel:
"The Devil's Advocate: Trump and Zelenskyy's latest meeting leaves little optimism, but many questions about the US President's common sense. Interview with Ohryzko
Roman Pryadun, December 30, 2025
The meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago on December 28 was billed as a near-final breakthrough. The results: three hours of negotiations, "great progress," several weeks to go until clear peace terms were reached, and only "one or two difficult moments" supposedly remained. In this scenario, everything looks almost perfect: the United States is demonstrating an active role as a mediator, Ukraine is ready for difficult decisions, and Russia is somewhere on the horizon, a party that, with a little more prodding, will agree. The only problem is that behind the grandiose statements there are virtually no specifics, and behind the optimistic rhetoric lies the old, familiar logic of pressuring Kyiv specifically.
Formally, the parties are discussing security guarantees, a military component, the restoration of Ukraine, and a "plan of consistent actions." Informally, however, the key dilemma resurfaces: Putin wants Donbas, Zelenskyy cannot and has no right to give it up, and in Trump's eyes, Russia's demands in general, and the demand to give up territory in particular, don't seem excessive. Trump wants a deal—a quick, effective one, and preferably one that can be sold as his own diplomatic triumph. It is precisely in this triangle that all the "95% of the agreed plan" and "100% security guarantees," the text of which no one has seen, are stuck. Meanwhile, Trump is rushing, threatening further territorial losses, and hinting that Kyiv has little time to reflect.
Against this backdrop, Russia's position remains surprisingly "consistent": Ukraine must withdraw its troops from Donbas to end the fighting and make a political decision regarding the territories. Putin hasn't changed his demands, shows no willingness to compromise, and continues the war, as evidenced by missile strikes on civilian infrastructure and statements from his entourage. Meanwhile, the US President remains oblivious and once again draws words from a parallel reality: Putin's "sincerity" and his "desire for peace" and "prosperity" for Ukraine. Once again, this creates a strange situation where the pressure is directed not at the aggressor, but at the victim of aggression.
Therefore, the key question after Mar-a-Lago is not whether the meeting was "wonderful," but rather whether, under the guise of a peace process, they are trying to impose on Ukraine decisions that are strategically beneficial to everyone but Ukraine itself. It is from this perspective that both the successes and failures of the current negotiations should be assessed.
Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko shared his thoughts on these and other issues in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA.
– The meeting at Trump's private residence, Mar-a-Lago, was supposed to yield something concrete. But despite the three-hour meeting, we emerged with optimism, along the lines of "everything is great, everything is fine, we're moving in the right direction," without any specifics. At least, security guarantees. Everything seems fine, but no one is saying what exactly. How do you assess this meeting, which was expected to yield at least some concrete results?
Frankly, I assess it as one that, unfortunately, did not produce the results we all expected. Because Trump once again played the devil's advocate, which is Putin. He decided that before meeting with Zelenskyy, he absolutely had to consult with Putin and understand what he wanted, what his final positions were, so to speak. And only then did he relay these positions during his conversation with the Ukrainian delegation. What is this if not a coordination of positions with the main enemy, I believe, of the entire civilized world?
How else can you describe Trump's position, which he claims "understands Putin"? He understands that Putin doesn't want a ceasefire. Because he'll have to renew it later. Let's remember where Trump started. He talked about an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and only then would negotiations, talks, agreements, and so on come. What is he saying today? He's saying: I understand Putin, who doesn't want a ceasefire.
Less than a year has passed, and Trump has already completely, pardon the word, bowed to Putin, to his position, and is effectively defending it. That's the greatest tragedy. And all our talk about how things might change is in vain.
In short, any hope that the views of the US, Ukraine, and Europe would somehow miraculously converge faded shortly before the meeting. After Donald Trump announced that he had had a "very productive" conversation with Vladimir Putin. This was already a bad sign, as their previous conversations had confirmed how receptive the American president was to the Kremlin dictator's arguments. Trump's indecent number of compliments to Putin simply confirmed this.
– As well as certain hopes that, perhaps, after Putin once again rejects all these proposals, Trump will finally begin to take some action.
Exactly. Nothing of the sort is happening. We see that he's not just not going to do this. Trump is going to continue to pander to Putin. The same goes for guarantees. They want to force us into some kind of decision without having any specifics about what we're even talking about.
You're absolutely right. There are no concrete details. What guarantees? What is NATO? We've discussed this many times. NATO is a guarantee from the United States. And now the United States is saying: the Europeans will give you guarantees, and we'll help somehow. How will we help? When will we help? For how long will we help? With what exactly? Nothing is clear. This is called buying a pig in a poke. Without seeing what kind of pig it is, what the conditions are, and what lies behind it. Therefore, frankly, I'm more than disappointed with the results. Yes, for the public, everyone is very optimistic, everyone is thanking each other. But for us, in my opinion, the result is completely unacceptable so far. I'm not even talking about territorial issues. But I don't see any movement on Trump's part toward reality there either.
– Regarding guarantees, the Ukrainian President, at least officially, is optimistic. He notes that we're being offered 15 years. What exactly is being offered, again, is unclear. The Western press writes that these guarantees from the US are the best Ukraine can get today, and better than anything previously offered. Meanwhile, Trump claims that the US will help, but Europe will shoulder a significant portion.
So we're back to the same old story. We don't know what we're even talking about. If this is going to be a second Budapest Memorandum, with just general talk about nothing, then a logical question arises. Why this whole series? Why this whole story about some kind of aid and some kind of guarantees, if in reality there are no guarantees?
Until we see what this means in practice on paper, all this talk will remain empty talk. We can talk about 10 years, 15, 30, or 50. But we don't know the meaning of this proposal. What does it imply? What does a guarantee mean? My understanding of a guarantee is that, in the event of an attack, the country guaranteeing your security immediately enters the war against the aggressor. Is that included in those guarantees? Frankly, I don't know.
– Regarding Donbas and the referendum, which Trump is practically demanding. The US President even stated that he's ready to come and address Ukrainian MPs. Essentially, to put pressure on the Verkhovna Rada, at least that's what it seems. How do you assess such statements?
It's comical because it simply doesn't fit together from any angle. I'll start by saying that the US has a 2017 law in effect, which Trump personally signed. This law clearly stipulates that the US has no right to recognize any Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories as Russian. It contains many other provisions about how the US should assist us, how it should ensure our sovereignty, and so on. But today, Trump simply ignores this law. For him, it's as if the document he personally signed doesn't exist.
What does this mean? If he ignores current US law, then where's the guarantee that he'll also comply with the new so-called security guarantees, if it's passed in Congress?
I'm no longer so sure. Because you can expect anything from someone who says black today and white tomorrow. And when they talk about a referendum, and Trump simultaneously says, "I understand Putin, who doesn't want to cease fire," a basic question arises. How can you hold a referendum under fire? Can anyone with common sense even propose such a thing? Yes, parliament can only put this issue to a referendum. It cannot make such a decision on its own, because it is expressly stipulated in the Constitution. Otherwise, parliament's decision would be null and void.
Here, you see, when people are reasonable, they try to act reasonably. But when they're not, all sorts of fantastical variations emerge that are divorced from reality and cannot be implemented in practice. That's why I say that, unfortunately, we have a situation where Trump is trying to find every possible way to support Putin, while completely failing to see that Putin must answer for his crimes.
Look at his response regarding what Russia should do to compensate for the damage caused to Ukraine. He says: "But Russia wants to sell Ukraine energy cheaply." Can you imagine the level of understanding of this situation? In other words, there's no talk of any responsibility whatsoever. Essentially, it turns out that Putin is right because he can seize 20% of Ukrainian territory today and nothing will happen to him.
But what does that even look like? You're supposedly becoming a mediator, but at the same time, you're starting to seize some of the country's assets. I'm talking about the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. You're supposed to be impartial, a mediator between the two sides, and in no way exploit the situation for your own gain. So what do you do? You say, "I'll take 50%, or 30%, I'll take 100 billion dollars, or whatever else I can squeeze out." So what kind of mediator are you? You're simply participating in the plunder of one side of a so-called conflict, which is actually aggression.
– Trump's statement that Ukraine must hurry with the agreement because even greater territorial losses could occur in the coming weeks or months. Doesn't this seem like intimidation of Ukraine and direct pressure on Zelenskyy, particularly regarding Donbas?
This precisely demonstrates his true position. The logic is simple: I won't help you stop the aggressor, but you stop it yourself, because the aggressor could seize even more of your territory. This is some kind of upside-down logic. You're on the wrong side of the fence, morally, politically, and legally. Here, we recall the Budapest Memorandum again, and that same American law. But instead, you're essentially saying: surrender, capitulate, because the enemy is advancing, and I won't and don't want to do anything. Because I'm a "mediator." True, a mediator on the enemy's side.
– Western media noted that one of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's main goals during his meeting with Trump was to shift the blame for the failure of the peace plan onto Putin. Do you think this can be completely forgotten? Because these statements, "I trust Putin," "he wants peace," "he wants what's best for Ukraine," are repeated over and over again. Can we simply write it off?
Responsibility is obvious to anyone who wants to see it. But if Americans don't want to see it, then any attempts to persuade them are futile. And here the issue lies with Trump. Because if he's clearly convinced that Putin wants peace, period, then what responsibility does that entail? That's the logic. And it once again tells us that we can no longer hope that Trump will put real pressure on Russia.
All reasonable European and global politicians understand perfectly well who is the root cause of this war. Therefore, when Putin talks about eliminating the "root causes of the war," it really means only one thing: eliminating Putin himself and his regime. Then the war truly would not have happened. After all, Putin spoke about this war back in 2001 to President Bush. Just in different words. And now, declassified documents have been released to the public. Remember how, during those same years, Putin publicly said: "What does Crimea or Sevastopol matter? This is exclusively Ukrainian territory. We are strategic partners, friends, and we will support each other." And at the same time, he declared that Ukraine is an "artificial state." That is the real root cause of this war. Therefore, when Trump says, "I trust Putin," he is actually trusting a man who is a criminal. He just doesn't want to say it out loud. Although he must know.
– Following the Trump-Zelensky press conference, Fox News reported that these talks could lead to the first conversation between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia in over five years. Do you think this is even possible at this stage of the war?
I don't know what this or that Fox News correspondent had in mind. This is most likely another ploy by the US administration to push the discussion in the direction they want.
But what should Zelenskyy discuss with Putin? Unless Trump doesn't know what Zelenskyy wished for in his Christmas address. But I don't think that would be pleasant for that war criminal. So I don't see any topics for such a conversation. It's an attempt to create the illusion of a process. Let them talk, they say. But it's pointless."
– Everyone's talking about the positions of Ukraine, the US, and Trump, whether the plan was agreed upon or not. But Putin hasn't changed at all. The latest statements and actions of his army show that a ceasefire is out of the question. The war will continue. He's already saying that, given the pace of the offensive, Russia's interest in withdrawing the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the territories it occupies is zero. In other words, Russia's position isn't changing at all.
Russia's position will only change in one case. If we stop its advance and begin our own. If we destroy its offensive and economic potential, then its position will change. Until that happens, until we read DeepState reports daily about the enemy's latest advance, Putin will continue to advance.
If Trump were to take not even a pro-Ukrainian but a pro-American stance, the situation would be different. But he's not doing so and is effectively refusing to help. Therefore, the only way to change Russia's position is to stop it. The more we destroy the enemy's manpower, equipment, infrastructure, and military-economic potential, the faster this will happen. Frankly, I don't see any other option.
– Why is Trump's response to Putin's ignoring his proposals so sluggish? It's about money, it's about an unwillingness or inability to understand the situation. It's about the perception of Russia as a state that "decides" things in the world, and Ukraine as something secondary in his eyes. Why is this happening?
It's all very down-to-earth here. Trump himself said just a few months ago that the Russian economy was in huge trouble. Remember, there was a period when he criticized Putin for destroying Russia's economic opportunities. And then he forgot about it. And he started dragging Russia into some new "group of five," which doesn't include a single European country.
This means one thing. Trump sees Russia as a source of potential profits. For American investors. And, no less important, for himself personally. Ukraine is significantly less interesting to him in this context. Because Russia is a vast territory with vast resources. In reality, from the Urals eastward, almost nothing has been explored or developed. Russia's potential in this regard is many times greater than Ukraine's. And since the dollar is the raison d'ĂȘtre for Trump, the logic here is quite clear.
For Trump, Ukraine is, roughly speaking, number 25 on the agenda. And Russia is a potential instrument for great American and personal enrichment. That's the whole story."
