interview
The US wants to end the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible – no matter the cost, says security expert Masala in an interview with tagesschau24. The pressure on Zelensky is likely to be enormous during the talks with Trump.
tagesschau24: The images of the aggressor Putin being greeted on a red carpet by the US President remain etched in people's minds. Just as the irritating non-messages of a fickle Donald Trump after the summit in Alaska remain. On what basis are the talks in Washington actually taking place today?
Carlo Masala: We don't know exactly, because what has been heard from the US in the last ten hours has been a bit of a cacophony. It seems to be about Zelensky ultimately agreeing that approximately 20 percent of the Donbas, which Ukraine still holds, will go to Russia. What he will get in exchange is not yet clear. Yesterday, Trump again used his own social media channels to shift the responsibility for the outcome of this meeting entirely onto Zelensky, saying that it is now up to Zelensky to decide whether there will be a quick peace or not. But we can only speculate about the basis for this, because we are receiving mixed information from the US.
tagesschau24: These uncertainties are also reflected in the reporting. There's talk of territorial exchanges, territorial cessions, peace negotiations, ceasefires, and armistices. What could the Europeans be talking about today?
Masala: From the European perspective, the only thing that can ultimately matter is that there is a ceasefire and that there are no territorial cessions. A territorial exchange is misleading because, while Russia has signaled its willingness to return a few square kilometers of the oblasts it currently controls, it is not prepared to completely abandon the four large oblasts. Therefore, from the European perspective, the only thing that can really matter is that Zelenskyy cannot be persuaded to abandon Donbass, that there is a ceasefire, and that negotiations on territorial issues are only addressed afterwards. The question that arises, however, is where does the US stand? And my impression is that the US is no longer interested in this sequence.
"Hardly any negotiating options for Zelensky"
tagesschau24: First, Trump and Zelenskyy will meet today. We all remember the debacle, the humiliation in the Oval Office during the last visit. What negotiating options does Zelenskyy have today? The officials from Europe will only have their say afterward.
Masala: Zelenskyy doesn't have many negotiating options. Actually, only two: agree to whatever Trump proposes, or reject it and risk the United States withdrawing completely from this war. That would mean they would no longer allow the Europeans to buy American weapons and give them to Ukraine. And intelligence cooperation, meaning the sharing of intelligence information with the Ukrainian army, would also cease.
These are the two options Zelensky has. His room for maneuver is relatively limited. The pressure on him will be enormous, and the mere fact that Trump is receiving him first and then consulting with Zelensky with the Europeans shows that this is precisely what the Americans want: to put Zelensky under complete pressure.
To person
Carlo Masala is Professor of International Politics and Director of the Institute for Strategy and Foresight (Metis) at the Bundeswehr University in Munich.
tagesschau24: Merz, Macron, Meloni, Starmer, Rutte, von der Leyen: There's probably never been a tour group like this at the White House before. Do you think Trump will be impressed and perhaps respond to the Europeans' demands?
Masala : Well, first of all, you never know with Trump. That's why I can't say anything definitive about it. But it seems to me that the United States is willing to end this war—no matter the cost. And the meeting in Alaska showed how far Trump has sided with the Russians and their demands.
From a European perspective, the question of security guarantees is certainly important and interesting. In the US, they're talking about guarantees similar to the mutual assistance guarantee under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. What does the US actually want to promise Ukraine to prevent another Russian attack in the future? I think that's the interesting question for the Europeans, because it will also determine how willing the Europeans are to send their own ground troops into Ukraine, if necessary, to secure such a peace. Although one shouldn't really speak of peace. That is, to then secure such an agreement.
Russia wants to push for war
tagesschau24: While this initiative is underway, Russia continues to attack unabated. How likely do you think it is that this is just an elaborate diversionary tactic by the Russian president?
Masala: I don't know if this is a diversionary tactic, but of course Russia has the upper hand. Moscow can negotiate without having to end the war. I think Russia is hoping now—with an immediate ceasefire off the table—that Zelensky will refuse to give the remaining 20 to 25 percent of Donbas to the Russians, if that's one of the demands. Then they can blame him for the failure of the whole thing. And then Russia can push ahead with its war.
tagesschau24: Finally, a question that is delicate but perhaps has to be asked: Realistically speaking, sooner or later – I don't want to call it a dictated peace – Ukraine will have to accept a peace that is to its disadvantage, right?
Masala: Zelenskyy has been prepared to freeze this conflict on the contact line since February, provided there are reliable security guarantees. So, the idea that part of Ukrainian territory is controlled by Russia has already been accepted by Zelenskyy. What he wants are guarantees that Ukraine will not be attacked again in the future. And that's the crucial sticking point: Now it's about Ukraine having to cede additional territory it holds. And that, of course, has a completely different dimension, one that isn't really acceptable from Ukraine's perspective.
