Key topics:
- Europe has outspent the US in aid to Ukraine, despite Trump’s claims.
- Trump downplays Ukraine’s security while pushing for a ceasefire deal.
- Russia’s demands would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future invasions.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.
If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.
By Marc Champion ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Watching Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, and his haranguing of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a few days before, it’s easy to get distracted by the sheer volume of falsehoods. But to do so is just to get left behind. Think of Trump’s claims as signposts to where he’s going, and it’s small wonder that Ukrainians are worried.
In both performances, for example, Trump repeated his line about how unfair it was that the US has been paying vastly more than Europe to support Ukraine’s war effort — to the tune of $350 billion to $100 billion. In both, he suggested equivalence between Russia and Ukraine in their suffering and responsibility for the war. And on Friday, he hammered Zelenskiy for failing to show gratitude for this generosity. All of this is, of course, nonsense.
Russia invaded Ukraine. The US allocated €114 billion ($122 billion) in aid as of Dec. 31, less than Europe’s €132 billion, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy’s exhaustive Ukraine Support tracker. Zelenskiy has thanked the US hundreds of times, including his first words in Friday’s meeting and on 20 occasions in a single address to a 2022 joint session of Congress. This is infuriating, but what it tells us is that Trump is trying to spark enough outrage among his voters over the unfairness of it all that when he cuts aid to Ukraine, they’ll back him.
Trump, similarly, needs to portray Zelenskiy as an ingrate and “dictator,” who is somehow responsible for Russia’s invasion and wants the war to continue. This way, when Ukraine gets bulldozed into accepting a ceasefire on the capitulatory terms President Vladimir Putin might accept, Trump’s America will dismiss complaints from Kyiv as warmongering.
While grotesque, it’s far from stupid as a strategy for getting the deal the US President wants. Zelenskiy got in trouble on Friday precisely because he started poking holes in the administration’s narrative on live television, focusing on the one issue that’s of life-and-death concern for his country: security guarantees.
“I don’t want to talk about security yet, because I want to get the deal done,” Trump responded. “Security is so easy, that’s about 2% of the problem.”Â
Zelenskiy’s attempt backfired spectacularly, but he was smart enough to write Trump a rapid letter of regret that also offered to sign a deal Trump wants granting the US control over 50% over Ukraine’s mineral resources, and this time with no mention of security guarantees. He also offered a phased ceasefire proposal, aimed at shifting focus onto whether Putin really wants to end the war, as Trump says he does.Â
Facts do matter. Security is closer to 98% of the problem, when it comes to ending Europe’s bloodiest war since 1945, and all the more so since Trump halted US military aid to Ukraine on Monday. Without solid guarantees, any ceasefire will simply ensure a better-prepared Russian invasion in the near future, just as it did when Moscow broke a 2015 truce to invade in 2022.Â
We know Kyiv’s future security to be the crux of any ceasefire negotiation — because Putin agrees. He’s been calling for Ukraine’s “demilitarization” ever since he ordered the latest invasion. We also have a blueprint for what he means by that in the clauses that remained in dispute the last time Kyiv and Moscow drafted a potential deal to halt the fighting. That was in the spring of 2022.
The draft texts that passed back and forth at the time have since been published by the New York Times, and it’s clear the two sides were quickly able to compromise on most issues. Kyiv agreed not to join NATO or host nuclear weapons, while resolving the question of Crimea’s status was left for a later date. But when it came to Ukraine’s ability to defend against future Russian aggression, a Grand Canyon separated the two sides.
Under the proposed deal, a group of co-sponsors – China, France, Russia, the UK and US – were to guarantee that they’d intervene to protect Ukraine, should it again be attacked. Putin’s negotiators insisted this clause should be activated only if “all” five countries agreed, granting the Kremlin a veto over any international response to its own potential future invasion. Zelenskiy’s representatives refused
Russia insisted that the size of Ukraine’s armed forces must be limited, including the number of troops and the type and quantity of weapons. Kyiv submitted to caps in principle, even though none were proposed for Russia. But there were wide differences over the limits to be set.
Ukraine wanted to be able to maintain an armed force of up to 250,000 troops; Russia said 85,000. Ukraine was willing to cap the number of main battle tanks it could have at 800; Russia said 342. Kyiv said it should be allowed to have 600 multiple launch rocket systems; Moscow said 96. Russia said Kyiv should have only 119 anti-aircraft guns and 608 shoulder-held launchers; Ukraine said there should be no limit, as these were purely defensive weapons. The list goes on.
If anything, should talks resume, the two sides would be further apart on Ukraine’s security today than they were three years ago. Both have dramatically increased the size of their arms industries and forces since 2022. Russia today has more than 1.3 million active duty military personnel. Ukraine says it has 980,000, which has proved barely enough to hold the line.
I’ve written before that what the new US administration has said on Ukraine and the concessions it made to the Kremlin before talks even begin make no sense except as an attempt to force Kyiv’s capitulation as part of a wider US reset with Russia. Seen in that light, security guarantees for Ukraine might well be just 2% of the problem, because Trump’s fabrications tell us that what happens to this sovereign state, or to stability in Europe, just isn’t his priority.Â
Read also:
- 🔒 Trump’s boldest speech yet: Tariffs, taxes, and tumult – and the truth behind his claims
- đź”’ The Economist: As Trump suspends military aid, what are the brutal chokeholds on Ukraine?
- 🔒 The Economist: A disaster in the White House for Volodymyr Zelensky—and for Ukraine
© 2025 Bloomberg L.P.
