Amy Goodman: President Trump says he is working on a “deal” to end the Russia-Ukraine war by hosting a series of meetings between the U.S., European Union, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. Putin is insisting Russia keep areas of Ukraine that it has seized, including the long-contested Donbas region [1], whilst Zelensky is asking the U.S. for security guarantees to prevent future invasion by its powerful neighbour. We host a conversation with two political scientists, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Ukrainian democratic socialist Denys Pilash, about the likely outcome of the talks and the roots of the conflict. Mearsheimer says “the sides remain so far apart” when it comes to the possibility of a ceasefire during peace negotiations that “the best outcome would be to settle this war now.” Pilash, on the other hand, says there are still measures that can be taken to pressure Russia to agree to a ceasefire and to secure more favourable postwar terms for Ukraine.

 The Summit Dynamics

Trump’s announcement came after hosting a high-stakes summit at the White House with Zelensky and seven European leaders — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. The meeting came three days after Trump held face-to-face talks with Putin in Alaska.

Major differences remain between Ukraine and Russia. Trump also talked to Putin for 40 minutes in the midst of his meeting with the European leaders and Zelensky. Putin is insisting Russia keep areas of Ukraine that it seized, including the Donbas region. During his meeting with Trump, Zelensky stressed the importance of security guarantees for Ukraine.

President Volodymyr Zelensky said: “This is a part, I think. It’s not a part for the war and to defend us; it also will be a part for security guarantees to strengthen our army, to rearm Ukrainian army. This is very, very important. And it depends how much money we need to rearm. For example, the question of air defence, we spoke about it with President Trump, and I’m happy that we have now bilateral decisions, and we will work on it with production, American production. Nobody in Europe has so many air defence, like Patriots [2], for example. We need it very much. And this is also about defending.”

After the meeting, President Trump promised the U.S. would help guarantee Ukraine’s security in any future peace deal with Russia, but said European countries would lead the efforts, and didn’t clarify whether he’d send U.S. forces to Ukrainian soil. The Financial Times reports Ukraine offered the U.S. a $100 billion [€91 billion] weapons deal to help win security guarantees.

 The Ceasefire Debate

During the White House summit, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pressed for a ceasefire before Russia and Ukraine hold direct talks.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz said: “The next steps ahead are the more complicated ones now. The path is open. You opened it last Friday. But now the way is open for complicated negotiations. And to be honest, we all would like to see a ceasefire, at the latest from the next meeting on. I can’t imagine that the next meeting would took place without a ceasefire. So, let’s work on that, and let’s try to put pressure on Russia, because the credibility of these efforts, these efforts we are undertaking today, are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations, from next step on.”

Although before Trump’s summit with Putin in Alaska he promised “severe consequences” if Putin didn’t agree to a ceasefire, he is now dismissing the need for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine.

President Donald Trump said: “I don’t think you need a ceasefire. You know, if you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war. I didn’t do any ceasefires. And I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand, strategically, well, you know, one country or the other wouldn’t want it. You have a ceasefire, and they rebuild and rebuild and rebuild. And, you know, maybe they don’t want that.”

This all comes as Russia launched 270 drones and 10 missiles overnight in what’s being called Russia’s largest airstrike on Ukraine since July.

 Mearsheimer: Reality of Limited Options

John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy, argues that Trump faces severe constraints in what he can achieve.

“I don’t think that much has changed,” Mearsheimer said. “I think the Europeans and the Ukrainians remain deeply committed to a ceasefire, the Russians are opposed, and Trump made it clear that there was not going to be a ceasefire.”

Mearsheimer argues that the fundamental problem lies in irreconcilable positions: “With regard to a real peace agreement, I think the sides remain so far apart that it’s hard to imagine that you’re going to get a peace agreement. What Trump would like to do is he’d like Zelensky and Putin to sit down and work out a deal, but I don’t understand how that could possibly happen, given the position of the Europeans and the Ukrainians, on one side, and the Russians, on the other side.”

He sees Trump attempting to distance himself from the conflict: “What Trump is trying to do — and you saw this reflected in the meeting — is he’s trying to move away ever so gently from this conflict. He is no longer interested in taking full responsibility, and he’s putting the burden of dealing with the Russians on the Ukrainians and on the Europeans.”

On the question of security guarantees, Mearsheimer is sceptical: “What the Ukrainians want and what the Europeans want is for the United States to give Ukraine a viable security guarantee, something akin to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty [3]. This is categorically unacceptable to the Russians. This war is all about Ukraine’s membership in NATO and Ukraine having a security guarantee from NATO.”

 Pilash: Rejecting Appeasement

Denys Pilash, a Ukrainian political scientist, historian, and member of the Ukrainian democratic socialist organisation Sotsialnyi Rukh [4], offers a fundamentally different perspective from Kyiv.

“The coming of Trump to the White House has only made things worse, because what we have seen from the current administration in Washington, this arguably the most far-right administration in the U.S. history, was a appeasement strategy, was like emphasising their affinity with Putin and with other authoritarian leaders throughout the world,” Pilash said.

He draws historical parallels: “This Alaska meeting, many people were really afraid that this can be something akin to Munich Conference back in 1938 with the carving out Czechoslovakia without the presence even of the representatives of the government, Edvard Beneš [5], the president, and others.”

Pilash challenges the NATO-centric explanation for the war: “Ukraine wasn’t going to be a member of NATO, because of the position of the major European member states. And this was well known. And actually, the main salesman for NATO, both in Ukraine and in the Nordic countries, in Sweden and Finland, was Putin himself, because prior to the annexation of Crimea [6] and to stirring up the war in Donbas by Russia, the support for NATO membership in Ukraine was rather low.”

 The Human Cost and Broader Implications

Pilash emphasises the human cost of the conflict: “I can just mention I used to work briefly with the journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna. So, she was kidnapped at the occupied territories. She was detained illegally by the Russians. She was ultimately tortured and killed, and then her body was returned with organs missing to conceal the tortures. And this is a fate that is really not that uncommon for the people in this grey zone of the occupation.”

He argues that inadequate peace terms would only perpetuate the conflict: “Ukraine will be completely harmed, you know, like, without any protection from further Russian attacks. So, at any point, Russia will have all the capacity and no restraints to repeat what they did back in 2022. So, what sort of peace are we even arguing about? This is not a peace. This is a continuation of the war.”

Pilash warns of broader global implications: “The precedent that is set by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that one country tries to redraw unilaterally international borders by the war of aggression, it may unleash an even worse mayhem throughout the world if it’s really enshrined in a sort of, you know, like, agreement where we reward the aggressor.”

 Economic Measures and Sanctions

While Mearsheimer sees the conflict as primarily resolvable through battlefield outcomes, Pilash argues there are still untapped diplomatic and economic tools: “Still there are things that can be done to curb Russia’s potential to wage this imperialist, aggressive war. And still there are many loopholes in the economic sanctions against Russia that are, like, taken up only recently. For instance, the case of the shadow fleet of Russian oil tankers that are shipping oil under other — guise of other countries and actually profiteering the Russian war machine.”

 Contrasting Analytical Frameworks

The debate reveals fundamental differences in analytical approach. Mearsheimer focuses on great power politics and structural constraints, arguing that Trump’s hands are tied by the irreconcilable positions of the parties involved.

Pilash, however, challenges this framework: “What’s really appalling in many people on the left falling for these narratives that are pursued by Mr. Mearsheimer is that we really abandon class analysis. We forget about what everything is about, that states aren’t some sort of monolithic interest. They are comprised of different classes and their contradictions, and even the ruling classes have their internal contradictions.”

 The Question of Rationality and Historical Precedent

Pilash takes particular issue with attempts to rationalise aggressive war: “Mr. Mearsheimer and his co-author, they went so far to try to rationalise even the decision of Hitler to start the worst bloodbath in world history by attacking the Soviet Union in the Second World War. But, ultimately, this is nothing rational and nothing pragmatic in resorting to war as your main way of doing international policy.”

 Looking Forward: Battlefield or Diplomacy?

The fundamental question remains whether this conflict will be resolved through military means or diplomatic negotiation. Mearsheimer believes the battlefield will ultimately determine the outcome: “This one is going to be settled on the battlefield. And what Trump wants to do is he wants to back away, and he wants to turn responsibility for this war mainly over to the Europeans and the Ukrainians.”

Pilash, speaking from the Ukrainian capital, maintains that resistance continues: “While Russia is going with all this indiscriminate killing of Ukrainians, regardless they are civilians or servicemen, who used to be yesterday civilians, I stay — stand on the Maidan Nezalezhnosti Square [7], where just yesterday we had the funeral of our comrade, anarchist activist and artist David Chichkan, who also died on the frontline because he deemed Russia to be a major fascist threat.”

 A Call for International Solidarity

Pilash concludes with a call for broader solidarity: “This means that we need to really be consistent in the positions, both on Ukraine, on Palestine, and broader, for all those people who are subject to oppression, to aggression, to subjugation, to more powerful imperialist or subimperialist forces. So, this needs, at least for the people on the left who believe in progressive values, that we are against any such policies and that we unite in our solidarity.”

---

About the speakers:

– Amy Goodman is the host of DemocracyNow.
John Mearsheimer is professor of political science at the University of Chicago, author of How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy
– Denys Pilash is a Ukrainian political scientist, historian, member of the Ukrainian democratic socialist organisation Sotsialnyi Rukh, and editor at Commons: Journal of Social Criticism