Political Analyst: Whitcoff's Mission Is A Foretold Outcome

• 21.10.2026, 16:16

Putin revealed his own weakness.

U.S. President Donald Trump has in recent days made a series of high-profile statements about Ukraine. He called the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ strikes on Russian oil refineries a “disgrace,” stated that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is harder to deal with than Vladimir Putin, and attributed the failure of Russia’s offensive on Kyiv to rain and a mistake by a Russian general.

What lies behind Trump’s pro-Russian rhetoric, and what threat does it pose to Ukraine? The website Charter97.org discussed this with Slovak political scientist and president of the Institute for Public Affairs (IVO, Bratislava) Grigory Mesezhnikov:
— There is a certain consistency here. The U.S. president has stopped supporting Ukraine in the same way the U.S. supported it before his election. In principle, he tolerated Ukraine receiving aid on a commercial basis, while American weapons continued to be supplied using European funds. The only aid that, apparently, was provided free of charge was intelligence. This helped Ukraine fend off Russian air attacks, including ballistic missile strikes.

Politically speaking, Trump, to put it mildly, does not like Ukraine. He sympathizes with Putin and his policies, as well as with authoritarian leaders in general. I think he even views Zelenskyy, to some extent, as a rival. After all, Zelenskyy is, of course, a leader of the free world today, because the President of Ukraine is genuinely fighting against global authoritarianism.

For Trump, however, economic interests related to U.S. relations with other countries come first. And this includes his personal interests as well. Throughout his time as U.S. president, he has hindered cooperation with Ukraine. His unflattering remarks about Zelenskyy are well known, as is their meeting in the Oval Office. And after Zelenskyy quite justifiably criticized the U.S. administration’s position, Trump lashed out with what I consider to be almost scandalous statements.

How can the retaliatory strikes of a state that is the victim of aggression possibly be a disgrace? It was attacked by an aggressor who is destroying its infrastructure and simply wants to freeze to death the people remaining in the country. How can anyone, in this situation, oppose Ukraine’s use of one of the opportunities to weaken the Russian state? After all, Russia is able to sustain itself and continue its aggression against Ukraine thanks to the extraction, export, and domestic use of oil. Who else, besides Russia itself, is criticizing Ukraine for defending itself? In essence, only Russia’s allies.

Let’s see how things unfold from here. Trump might say one thing and then try to correct it somehow. And he sometimes acts this way: first he does one thing, and then something completely different. But his current statements, of course, amount to support for Russia’s policies.

— Most Americans support Ukraine, but Trump is going against this sentiment. How might this position affect the Republicans in the election?

— As I see it, this probably won’t have a very strong impact on the election results. There is a faction within the Republican Party that supports Ukraine and disagrees with Trump on this issue. However, in the midterm elections, I think voters will primarily cast their ballots based on their views regarding domestic issues in the U.S.

Even the moderate segment of Trump’s electorate, which disagrees with his policy toward Ukraine, may be swayed to support the Republicans by what’s happening within the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, as they say, has its own problems. The left wing is trying to shift the party’s positions on issues related to the situation in the Middle East. There’s a very strong anti-Israel bias there.

For undecided voters, this could prove to be an important factor and soften their critical stance toward Trump’s policy on Ukraine. That’s my sense of things. I don’t have any specific poll data on this issue, although I try to keep track of the polls. It’s quite possible that Trump’s political strategists see this, too. But Trump himself is a rather impulsive person. His actions often seem illogical to us from a pragmatic standpoint, especially given how voters might react. He has made similar statements and taken similar steps on other issues as well.

Therefore, I think the impact on the midterm election results will be limited. Within the Republican Party itself, this position may be significant and even provoke resistance. As for voter preferences, however, in my view, they are unlikely to change significantly. Of course, I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

— After meeting with Zelenskyy, Steve Whitcoff went to see Putin with proposals for security guarantees for Ukraine. What might come of these talks?

— So far, these talks have led nowhere at all. They have only confirmed that the current U.S. administration is not inclined to support Ukraine in the same way that other allies, including European countries, do.

I’d put it this way: wherever Whitcoff sets foot, nothing grows except for some strange projects. Remember how many deals fell through because of rare earth metals in Ukraine? Agreements, treaties, and various concessions were discussed; contracts were supposed to be signed. But where is all that now? Are there any tangible results? I’m no insider, but it seems to me that everything has stalled. And yet there were concrete interests at stake.

That’s why, despite all these trips and meetings—with all the fanfare and hand-on-heart rhetoric—I don’t expect any results either. The situation for Ukraine is now more critical than it was during previous trips. Russia cannot conquer Ukraine. Nevertheless, even in its current state, it has the potential to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure and weaken the country. Ukraine needs to draw conclusions from this.
Trump may indeed sincerely want peace. I don’t even want to express any doubts on this matter. He would like there to be no wars, and one cannot deny him that desire. But in the case of Ukraine, he would be capable of supporting a course of events that would lead to peace but would mean Ukraine’s capitulation. In this sense, his position is in line with Putin’s. Putin, of course, does not want peace, but he would welcome a solution that leads to Ukraine’s surrender. For Trump, this would then open up the opportunity to do business with Russia. However, Ukraine cannot afford to do that—to surrender to Putin’s mercy. Therefore, I think hopes that Ukraine will agree to yet another set of arrangements that Whitcoff will bring back from Moscow are in vain. Remember how many peace plans there have been, including the 28-point plan? They all ended up in the trash.

I may be wrong, but neither Zelenskyy nor Putin has changed. And most importantly, Whitcoff hasn’t changed either. He’s remained exactly the same.

— Putin proposed to hold a meeting in China with Trump and Xi Jinping without Ukraine’s participation. Could the three leaders attempt to stage a “new Yalta” and impose peace terms on Kyiv? Would such agreements be valid without the consent of Ukraine and Europe?

— No, they wouldn’t. To be honest, I even doubt that Trump would go along with this. He would face severe criticism. His stance on China is well known: he is strongly opposed to it, despite his public flirtations with Xi Jinping. An attempt to resolve the issue of ending Russia’s war against Ukraine in such a format would be a surprising development.
For Putin himself, this would, in essence, be an admission of his own weakness and the weakness of the state he leads. After all, in its foreign policy, Russia usually “forces someone to make peace.” They forced Georgia to make peace; now they want to force Ukraine, but they are failing to do so. If Putin is proposing this kind of pressure on Ukraine, it means he can no longer do without the United States and China.

Naturally, Europe cannot under any circumstances join such agreements. And deciding Ukraine’s fate without its participation would be an absolute scandal. Ukraine has an army that is perhaps the strongest in Europe right now. So what—is it going to surrender under this pressure? I think that simply cannot happen.