A critical phase has begun in the Russia-Ukraine war. Recent shifts in the US approach toward Ukraine raise questions about Washington’s plans regarding Kyiv.
Globalinfo.az spoke on the matter with political analyst Elman Telmanoglu:
– Mr. Elman, is the US leading Ukraine toward defeat step by step?
– The shifts in US policy on Ukraine raise serious questions about Kyiv’s military and diplomatic positions. If Washington links support for Ukraine to its own political interests, prioritizes talks with Moscow, and expects concessions from Kyiv, this could weaken Ukraine’s room for maneuver. A policy that ultimately strengthens Russia’s position poses a real political risk.
In my view, the main danger is not so much that the US will halt support for Ukraine entirely, but that it will turn that support into a leverage tool to reach a deal with Moscow. If concessions are demanded of Kyiv without equally severe conditions placed on Russia, this risks producing a political settlement aligned with the aggressor’s interests rather than an equitable peace. Under such a scenario, a weakened Ukraine will increase Russia’s regional influence.
– Does what is happening around Zelenskyy indicate that he will sign an act of capitulation?
– Growing pressure on Zelenskyy and the US using its leverage over the Ukrainian leadership could restrict Kyiv’s decision-making capacity. Tying military aid, intelligence sharing, and financial support to political conditions could confront Ukraine’s leadership with difficult choices. However, these developments do not prove that Zelenskyy has decided to sign a surrender document. The key issue is on what terms a potential deal is drafted and to what extent it preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty.
If Kyiv is pressured to accept Russia’s demands regarding occupied territories, curb its defense capabilities, and agree to peace without credible security guarantees, this could essentially amount to a strategic defeat for Ukraine. In my view, maintaining Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in the future matters more than Zelenskyy’s political fate. An agreement without security guarantees might halt the war temporarily, but it would not eliminate the threat of a new Russian attack.
– Are the statements and decisions of US officials intended to reassure and neutralize Putin?
– US efforts to broaden dialogue with Russia and normalize economic ties to some degree could influence Moscow’s political stance. Washington may present these steps as a way to end the war and bring Putin to the negotiating table. However, if Russia secures economic and diplomatic concessions without altering its policy toward Ukraine, the Kremlin will view this as a sign of weakness. In that case, US peace-seeking measures would backfire, expanding Russia’s room for maneuver.
There are no grounds to assert firmly that the US intends deliberately to reassure Putin. Yet the outcome of a policy matters more than its intent. If Washington’s decisions ease pressure on Russia, constrain Ukraine’s position, and enhance Moscow’s strategic advantage, that policy warrants serious criticism. Genuine peace is achieved not by acceding to the aggressor’s demands, but by limiting its capacity for new aggression.
Safura Bannayeva
Globalinfo.az
Read also
