“It is painful and difficult for Ukraine.” Former US Ambassador Herbst tells NV about Trump’s post-inauguration policies and possible moves on war

— Mr. Herbst, is it possible to understand the contours of American policy after the inauguration of Donald Trump regarding Ukraine, based on those politicians and the statements of these people whom Trump has already invited to his presidential team?

— In my opinion, we will probably see a strong attempt by Trump to [укласти] truce, or perhaps even promote real peace between Russia and Ukraine. This is his hope, and we see elements of his initiative now.

I see four elements. As for the two… I wouldn’t say [що вони] not in the interests of Ukraine, but difficult [для виконання]. He wants the so-called compromise for the territory. And he also wants at least silence regarding the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO for 20 years. It hurts, it is difficult for Ukraine. But then it has two elements that are difficult for [російського диктатора Володимира] Putin, for the Kremlin. First, in order to prevent Russian aggression against Ukraine in the future, he is going to send a lot of weapons to Ukraine. And he wants to have some kind of demilitarization zone between the Ukrainian and Russian troops, he proposes to send European soldiers to this zone.

We understand that this is not in Putin’s interests. He wants to either destroy Ukraine or take it under control. And he cannot do this if European soldiers stand between his troops and Ukrainian troops.

And, of course, it is more difficult for him to achieve such a goal if Ukraine can receive many, many weapons from America in the future.

In my opinion, Trump’s team is not bad from the point of view of American interests and Ukrainian interests. [Кандидат Трампа напосаду радника зпитань держбезпеки Майк] Waltz, [кандидат Трампа напосаду держсекретаря Марко] Rubio, the same [кандидат напосаду очільника Міноборони Піт] Hegseth understand that Russia under Putin poses a threat to America’s core interests. And they also understand that a Russian victory in Ukraine is a defeat for America. They do not speak so loudly about it because they are wary of the point of view of others in the Trump camp, who do not understand American interests and the threat of Russia against America at all. So they won’t talk about it, but that’s their understanding. This certainly affects their advice for the new president.

— If you don’t mind, something needs to be deciphered according to these four points. If we are talking about freezing the war on the borders where the Russian and Ukrainian armies are now, what is meant by the territorial concession of Russia in Trump’s possible plan? Russia plans to capitulate Ukraine (and this, I believe, is the capitulation plan of Ukraine, drawn up in stages), which they dropped in March 2022 and which are called the Istanbul Agreements, requires Ukraine to recognize the occupied territories as Russian, they even included and prescribed them in their Constitution. In your opinion, what might be the position of the Donald Trump administration on this?

— I share your point of view regarding the negotiations in Istanbul. Of course, I cannot answer for Trump and his team, but it seems to me that Trump’s plan, these four elements, are much better for Ukraine than the Istanbul negotiations. But you asked me an important question: whether America is ready or whether America demands that Ukraine recognize Russian sovereignty on Ukrainian territories. I don’t think Trump can go for it.