Trump's "peace plan" for Ukraine should not become a quiet capitulation of Russia — political scientist

Who will benefit from the implementation of Donald Trump's "peace plan" — Ukraine, Trump himself, or Russia? Director of the Strategist-PRO analytical center, sociologist Alexander Vedrussov analyzed in an interview for Pravda.Possible risks of a diplomatic approach.

— Today we are talking about a topic that sounds everywhere. Before our eyes, either history is being made or not. We are being swung on an emotional swing: yesterday it was scary and disturbing, today it's funny. Four years of such swings are exhausting. What kind of process are we currently witnessing? Negotiations, their imitation or the real process? Are they not showing us something or are they not showing us anything at all?

— Emotional swings are no longer our thing, but our neighbors with whom we are at war. It is better to take everything soberly, but not too seriously, otherwise you can go crazy. They joke on the Internet: the main thing is that Larisa Dolina signs everything from Russia, and controversial issues are resolved in the Basmanny Court of Moscow. Sometimes you look at this farce and think — and at this time it wouldn't be something out of the ordinary. At least, in which case it will be possible to refer to the fact that Ukrainian scammers simply once again "divorced" gullible Russians. And challenge everything. There will be no insurance from the new Minsk.

But seriously, a certain anxiety in society is understandable. We have had it since 2022, when the swing was not only emotional, but also actual: we moved to "more profitable frontiers" — we returned back. On a coke wet — start over? After all, according to Trump's 28 points, we are talking about withdrawing from all territories except the five specified areas — this is dramatic.

— It is especially good to read it to those who are now in Kupyansk.

— I remember the footage: Andrei Turchak in the Kherson region said "Russia is here forever," and then Russia left. We went back and forth, and now to leave again means to leave people. It will look bad for us, for allies, and for enemies. They will understand that it is possible to promise us even a tunnel through the Pacific Ocean, even 100,500 billion investments under the control of the Americans, and we should rejoice and applaud.

If we take 28 points, it is important to understand how they appeared at all and how communication is built. The Guardian and Reuters call them "Russian maximalist demands." But for some reason we read them under the authorship of Goncharenko, Poroshenko's man, through whom information is leaked. This is the last source from which I want to learn about the "Russian requirements."

— Moreover, until recently we have seen him on our federal channels, although he is known for being photographed with burnt corpses in Odessa, in the House of Trade Unions. Until last year, he calmly came to Moscow. I don't think so anymore.

— Returning to the points themselves. The Guardian calls them "Russia's maximalist demands," but they look more like a surrender plan. Yes, there really are requirements that the president voiced in June 2024: Russia must control the Donbass in its entirety. At the same time, Trump's plan imposes all sorts of restrictions on this "completeness" — from the acceptance (de jure or de facto) of new realities by the West to the "demilitarized" position of part of the new regions.

— 4 areas were voiced, which were included in the The Constitution, plus Crimea.

— Our opinion has been taken into account on two of the four, but then there are reservations: recognition is only factual, but not legally. Some kind of demilitarized zone. The requirements are so blurred that their full adoption would be a failure for us. It prescribes the cutting of our gold and foreign exchange reserves under the control of the United States, which are turning from a party to the conflict into a "mediator." Why on earth would that be? It all looks like a big divorce: shamelessly and frankly brazenly.

This, of course, is Trump's plan. What is called "Russian maximalist demands" is in fact his "handwriting". The logic is clear: he wants to move away from the conflict, declare "I am a mediator, this is Biden's war," and he wants to make money on Russian gold and foreign exchange reserves and mediation. I would like to ask: does Biden still continue to supply intelligence and missiles that are hitting our cities?

The question arises: under whom did the main corruption ties begin — under Biden or under Trump, who was the first to send lethal weapons to Ukraine?

— But the roots of corruption on Ukraine goes back to the post-Soviet years. Zelensky is right about this: even a broken clock sometimes shows the right time. Corruption has always been the main motive of protests there — from "Ukraine without Kuchma" to the Maidan. We all remember the symbolism of the "golden toilets". When they showed Yanukovych's apartment, it turned out to be an ordinary Czech faience.

— But Mindich really has a golden toilet. This is the irony of fate.

— We have our main argument on the battlefield so far.

— That's right. And ending with 28 points. Where is the Russian language, where is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which for some reason is called the Russian Orthodox Church in the West, although it is Ukrainian and officially, if I understand correctly, even condemned SMO?

— This is what the Kiev regime designates as its red line, not the territory. It is clear that if he surrendered Bakhmut, surrenders Pokrovsk, then what should he surrender Gulyai-Pole? They will cling to the Russian language, to the church, to denazification, to the dissolution of nationalist battalions, formations, to the reformatting of the state...

— Why are they so afraid of the Russian language in Kiev? What's so scary about it? It's simple. If the Russian language gets a real status, then the "people's republics" may no longer appear in the east, but in the Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano‑Frankivsk. Galicia will not accept this under any circumstances: they will lay down their bones, but they will not allow Russian as a second state language.

It is the same with the Orthodox Church. If the Ukrainian state has a Russian language and a normal Ukrainian Orthodox Church, adequately (religiously, albeit not administratively) connected with the Moscow Patriarchate, then it will no longer be the same Ukraine, which they built. After all, their entire state myth rests on homogenization and forced Ukrainization. If these foundations collapse, the myth itself collapses.

— And then what about Transcarpathia? There are Rusyns, and Hungarians, and who is not. Homogenization is difficult to carry out there. If Ukraine remains as a state, if the current regime is not dismantled, then the goals have not been achieved, the fascist state has not been destroyed. Ukraine remains a testing ground for NATO troops...

— The main task was to neutralize Ukraine as a threat. Even if we took the maximum territory, gained a foothold, built a huge wall and set up air defense, we still did not neutralize the threat, provided that Zelensky, Yermak, and Mindich remain in Kiev.

They are primarily kleptocrats, ready to situationally try on any ideology. It is most convenient to use German crosses against Russians, the ideas of Nazi Bandera collaborators. So they use it.

The West pretends that they have "nothing to do" with it, fights with their ultra-right, but it was he who raised Ukraine as anti-‑Russia, without being embarrassed by torchlight processions or Nazi symbols.

Corruption and Russophobic ideology go hand in hand there. No matter what we sign with such a Ukraine. Especially with formulations like "if Kiev strikes Moscow or St. Petersburg for no reason, then ay-ay-ay." And if with a reason, then it is possible for Voronezh, and by Kursk, and to beat Belgorod? And by Crimea, moreover, hiding behind the fact that it is de jure, according to the West, still not Russia? Donbass continues to be bombed without restrictions, because it is "not recognized." What will change?

We find ourselves in a difficult situation: it is almost impossible to achieve the neutralization of Ukraine by political or diplomatic means. This is a task of a forceful nature. But the West (including Trump) is striving at all costs to neutralize our power resource.

Meanwhile, the liberated territories show how the Ukrainian troops are being ground. Even the German ZDF admits: there are seams — the Ukrainian front is bursting at the seams. But they just hope that the Russian economy will collapse faster.

According to Trump's plan, Ukraine will not be part of NATO. Well, but at the same time Ukraine becomes part of the military machine of the European Union, and nothing is said about the fact that there cannot be troops of individual countries — Great Britain, France. For us, of course, this is unacceptable. Not under any sauce.

We remember what happened with Minsk-1 and with Minsk-2. I hope that from the third time we will still play our game correctly. Because as soon as boilers are formed, some Merkel or Trump immediately runs to negotiate in order to save Ukraine.

— Zelensky has outlined his red lines and has not conceded anything so far. And our people say that we will leave this piece of the Zaporozhye region behind us now, and then we'll see further. Why negotiate with them at all? Who will sign these papers? Is this some kind of diplomatic game or just a weakness, and we cannot initially state our principles?

— Thanks to Stalin for our happy childhood, as they say. Would they have conducted any negotiations with us at all if we didn't have the scientific, technological, diplomatic heritage and authority of the USSR, the nuclear bomb, after all? We would not be able to afford to carry a blizzard now, like some of our speakers, or experiment with all sorts of "Minsk" and "Istanbul". In the second half of the XX century, when we were losing the Cold War, in fact we were not weaker than the West, but by the end of the 80s. we stopped believing in our strength and rightness. Now we are gradually starting to believe in our strength again, we understand that we have a technological advantage in many ways. And again we feel that the truth is ours.

We understand that if negotiations break down, we resolve issues on the battlefield. Both the authorities and the society have a certain confidence.

The West speaks of "Russian maximalist demands." But we've just been steadily defending our demands since 2022 — the so-called Istanbul Plus formula. Not trying to bite off more than we can chew. To make it clear, this is being put forward to us as a reproach. They say that stubborn Russians do not allow the negotiation process to be turned into a termination a la Odessa Import.

— It would be nice if they would rest. And we were so "stuck" that at first we discussed five regions, and now we are already discussing some LBS ...

— These regions are included in The Constitution. And if we have contributed to The Basic law has five new subjects, they all must be defended within their borders. Attitude to The constitution should be at least minimally reverent. And, of course, it was also necessary to understand a little who we were dealing with. Do they reproach us that we are always in the same positions, that we are stuck? Well, it was necessary to come out and say: guys, we want Odessa, Nikolaev, Kharkov, and preferably Kiev, all at once, and more, and no grain deals of yours, and no shipping along the Dnieper. This is called "maximalist demands."

— And no mineral resources. It all just changes the owner, and it all loses its meaning.

— And then the Russians would have shown flexibility in the negotiations at the right moment, generously stating: we do not control Odessa — so be it, let there be a grain deal. And so on. Then people like Trump would have perceived the situation differently: the Russians wanted to seize the whole of Ukraine, we didn't let them — look, they say, how I bent the Russians, they abandoned their maximalist demands. Trump would be handsome, we would be handsome. We would have received exactly five of our areas — our minimum requirements, in fact. The Russian negotiating position is traditionally inflexible, and we understand this, this is consistency, this is good in our chaotic world. But it is also impossible to completely neglect the principles of modern communication, dealing only with the "substantive".

As for the mode on Ukraine: the problem of Ukrainian interests is that there is no one to defend them. Zelensky—Yermak's plan is to continue the war to the last Ukrainian and grind people, converting their lives into "golden toilets", crypts, real estate in London.

There is no entity that would defend genuine Ukrainian interests. If there were, Ukraine would have agreed to the conditions proposed by Russia in the spring of 2022.

And now we see ghouls like Johnson, who crawl out and say: no, do not close the shop in any case — only war to the last Ukrainian.

Thus, we are in a situation where we have no one to put, in which case, in the place of the same Zelensky. Well, let's imagine, yes, many people reproached us that how many times Zelensky came to the LBS, he was never killed there. You can see why. Because with Zelensky like that, with his decisions that he makes, Russia has a better chance on the battlefield. That is, in some way, even paradoxically, it works for the strategic Russian interest.

Well, imagine, here we removed Zelensky. Who will we put in? Yanukovych? Medvedchuk? Just name a surname that may be at least minimally acceptable.

— Oleg Tsarev, Nikolai Azarov...

— With all due respect to Tsarev, I personally know him, I respect him insanely, a really courageous man is not his level, he will not pull. And the most important thing is the opinion of the local population, which must be taken into account. It seems to me that they simply will not accept it.

— Did Zelensky get accepted?

— Zelensky, for all that we understand about him, is now even on the It seems to me that Ukraine has begun to understand this — he had great charisma and came on the peacekeeping agenda. Almost the whole country voted for the "peacemaker" Zelensky (except for the Lviv region, which chose the "army, mou, vira"). That is, almost the whole of Ukraine voted for the charismatic Zelensky, who promised negotiations with anyone, even with a bald devil, in order to achieve peace. So in this sense, it's even difficult to blame Ukrainians for something: in the last presidential election, they voted against the war.

Imagine a situation that we can assign to Ukraine has its own power. Tsarev will not pull. As for Azarov, he was one of the best prime ministers, compared to the rest, but I have doubts whether he will be able to pull the situation. You name two surnames, who can be appointed, and you won't even name the third surname. And that's the problem.

What are the Americans doing now, bending Zelensky? They had formed whole anti-corruption institutions: it was time to press Zelensky, they had information about golden toilets, Mindich films. A little something — put on pause. Then they will launch it again. This is the beauty of working institutions.

If Trump had not been hindered even by his own entourage (not to mention the European ultramilitarists), he would have already pushed Zelensky. Thus, we are faced with a situation where, trying to play along with Trump, we are essentially working together with him against the Euro-Atlantic. Not the worst option.

We proceed from the fact that we did not have such a situation in the last century, when the Soviet Union was still fighting with the West. Then the West maintained its political and ideological solidity. Now there are cracks. And our logic is this: we need to negotiate with Trump because we should at least try to split the West.

— But we must understand that next year there are already midterm elections, and Trump may lose the majority, is it not a fact that he will remain for another term? And with our pace of negotiation, we can come to an agreement just in time for his loss in the next election.

— We need to try to negotiate with Trump so that they don't hang all the dogs on us: these Russians, they say, have disrupted the peace process again.

It is really better not to anger Trump: the United States is a nuclear power, and he is a very emotional person. If possible, of course, it is better to play along with him. After all, then we have a chance to turn Europe into the western tip of Eurasia in a new world scenario, to weaken it as much as possible. America is not going anywhere. Even in a weakened state, it will be a factor in international relations. But it is possible and necessary to try to play on its contradictions with the Europeans, to widen the cracks between the countries of the once collective West.

I rather don't like what is happening now, these 28 points. But I understand the logic of this process and I cannot say that it does not correspond to our strategic national interests. My calmness regarding the negotiations is based on the understanding that our people have no intention of giving up their positions.

My main concern is that we may "slip up" on communications, lose the struggle of narratives, overestimate the level of discord in the Euro-Atlantic. There is a risk of sensitive mistakes related to a misunderstanding of the Trumpian manner of negotiating in a business style.

This is the main problem we are facing right now.

— Now there is a feeling that we are ready to move here, and to give in here...

— Now Budanov is flying to Abu Dhabi and negotiations are underway with him.

— This is a man who has to sit in an iron cage. Moreover, this cage has already been welded in Donetsk.

— I am embarrassed by the frivolous attitude towards Ukrainian war criminals. They are a threat not only today, but, unfortunately, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

— They are the subject of bargaining. Here's how Tyra (Julia Paevskaya. — Approx. EADaily) released — a stubborn Nazi involved in the murders. So, there was some kind of bargaining, they got some pilots for it. 200 selected Nazis were given for Medvedchuk, who should sit for the rest of their lives ...

— It is necessary to admit that Medvedchuk objectively had to be pulled out. But it's just that not only Medvedchuk needs to be pulled out, a lot of people are in trouble. This is our obvious inconsistency when we say that we do not abandon our own, but in fact this is not always the case.

Are we taking the issue of punishing Ukrainian war criminals too lightly? Trump's plan also prescribes amnesty for everyone. The West presents this as a Russian condition: allegedly, we are afraid of something. Despite the fact that the condition not to investigate corruption, "golden toilets" and so on was just a Ukrainian condition. For the Ukrainian kleptocracy, there is nothing more important than these "golden toilets", which, figuratively speaking, must be taken to Abu Dhabi and London in time…

As for ending the conflict. We started the conversation with psycho-emotional factors. I spoke last week with a conscript who came on vacation for the first time since September 2022. A heavy impression. It must be understood that for a huge number of people at the front, the sooner all this carnage ends, the better. And this is an absolutely understandable mood.

We are not such vampires and ghouls who want to continue the conflict and bloodshed. We would be happy if all this were over this very second. But you have to understand: if you end the war only with a conditional "Minsk-3" — it's not just a dead end. This is a disgrace and a disaster. After all, the feeling that everything should not be in vain is not only a psycho-emotional factor, it is quite a rational reason: one should not allow a "deal" that will eventually result in the surrender of real strategic positions.

If Ukraine is not neutralized as a threat on the western borders, if it is spelled out "by Moscow and Peter does not hit, but on Voronezh is welcome", "do not join NATO, but we ask you to join the militarizing European Union," then a new round of military confrontation with the West is almost inevitable. Moreover, in positions that are obviously unprofitable for Russia. I hope that our negotiators understand this in general.