Mixaylo Podolyak: "In fact, a normal and comfortable negotiation process is underway"

^{Hennadii Minchenko / Ukrinform / Future Publishing / Getty Images}
US President Donald Trump confirmed his intention to meet with Putin immediately after the inauguration on January 20, 2025. At that time, international observers expressed concern that Kyiv's opinion would not be taken into account during these negotiations. Around that time, the advisor to the head of the Ukrainian president's office, Mykhailo Podolyak, stated in an interview with "Meduza" that Trump was assessing the steps being proposed regarding the Russian invasion in a more optimistic light.

A month later, however, Trump referred to Zelensky as a "dictator," demanded an uncomfortable deal for the supply of rare underground metals from Ukraine in exchange for military assistance, and US and Russian delegations were conducting peace negotiations without Ukraine and Europe’s participation.

"Meduza" contacted Podolyak again to find out what the official position of Kyiv is regarding these events.

— Kyiv has warned the world several times that trusting Putin is not advisable. Can Trump be trusted?
— Of course. At this stage, he can be trusted. One just needs to take into account Trump's style: he is always prone to information aggression and wants to achieve his goals in a short time. It is also necessary to understand his extremely pragmatic approach. Trump is striving to secure the most beneficial economic positions for the US. He applies this style regardless of whom he is communicating with — whether it be an ally or an opponent. You either take this into account and negotiate effectively with him, or you give him everything. Some take a firmer position in negotiations, while others are softer. Trump acts as firmly as possible.

— Recently, he has repeatedly echoed Russian propaganda theses and blackmailed Kyiv. Why do you think Trump is doing this? If he treats everyone this way, why did he label Zelensky as a "dictator" instead of Putin?
— What we saw in Riyadh [during US and Russian negotiations] was an attempt to pull Russia out of isolation, but on its own terms. Trump is trying to reduce the anti-Russian sentiment within the American political elite. Over the past three years, this sentiment has peaked — even though there is a full basis for it. He is now openly showing interest in obtaining economic benefits from Russia. In this way, he aims to "trap" Putin and achieve the highest economic return from Russia. His only interest is the US's benefits — financial income, access to markets, or cheap resources. This strategy may or may not be successful overall; I cannot say for sure. But for now, Trump is achieving the desired results through this pressure.

I agree with the opinion of the head of European diplomacy, Kaya Kallas. She mentioned that in recent days, certain positions of Russia have been reflected in US rhetoric. This is explained by the factors I have mentioned.

— Why is the US behaving this way at the UN General Assembly?
— The situation at the UN General Assembly is similar. However, I think we are paying too much attention to this, as these [UN] resolutions do not have significant practical impact. Nevertheless, the General Assembly also adopted a resolution proposed by Ukraine and Europe, which designated Russia as an absolute aggressor, and supported a US resolution that reflected Russia's status in a much more ambiguous manner. They issued a decision that pleases all sides, and thus everyone is satisfied — this is the most accurate description of the current situation at the UN. It even supports contradictory resolutions. There is no effectiveness in this mechanism.

Russia, through Putin and Dmitriev, the head of the Direct Investment Fund, has been openly stating its readiness to provide direct financial compensation to American companies, including in the oil sector. Russia is ready to offer the US the opportunity to participate in the extraction of certain natural resources.

According to Trump's logical position, he is acting rationally. This is not a soft strategy but a maximum hard power strategy that serves to increase the opportunity for the US to obtain direct financial income. After a while, more significant issues will arise before them. For example, they may be able to make money by cooperating with Russia, but from a historical perspective, they may lose their reputation. In such a situation, what path will they take?

This will likely become an internal discussion within the Trump administration — which interests are worth how much, the direct benefits of working with Russia, and at the same time losing alliance relations with Europe, decreasing mutual trust, and losing historical prestige.

— So, do you think there is a cold calculation behind Trump's statements?
— Exactly. Unlike Europe, there are no emotions involved — that is clear. I wouldn’t want to talk about Europe’s "awakening," but the statements by [French President Emmanuel] Macron and Germany's future Chancellor Friedrich Merz about the need for Europe to invest more in enhancing its independence in defense, economy, and technology indicate that Europe is recovering, and that is very good.

— Representatives of Trump's team have repeatedly stated that Ukraine will not join NATO. Washington is negotiating with Moscow without Kyiv's participation. What meaning does the Ukrainian leadership see in such negotiations? If they do not align with the peace plan proposed by Zelensky, what "red lines" does Kyiv have that, if crossed, Ukraine will withdraw from this process?
— Speaking about Trump's team's statements regarding NATO, peacekeeping forces, or arms supplies, the very fact that these statements exist indicates that these issues are being discussed. You can say that there is nothing on the negotiation table, but in reality, everything is on the table: the issue of NATO membership and the involvement of peacekeeping forces as a security guarantee.

It is impossible to conduct the negotiation process without the participation of subjects like Ukraine and Europe. This is not a negotiation within the framework of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the US, where mutual restraint mechanisms were developed. This is an attempt to end a hot war that is ongoing in a specific state. In this war, there is another important subject — the Ukrainian armed forces. There is also the Ukrainian society that has been effectively resisting Russia for three years.

Additionally, the scale of assistance provided by the European Union to Ukraine is, at the very least, almost equal to that provided by the US. 114 billion dollars against 132 billion dollars. I am counting both financial and military assistance here. The assistance provided by Europe is even greater.

Europe must be at this negotiation table because not only is the issue of peace and ending the war discussed there, but also the post-war order: who is responsible for what, which norms of international law will continue to operate, whether there will be legal or financial consequences for Russia's aggression, and so on.

I believe that countries like China, Turkey, and Arab states will also want to participate in such expanded format negotiations.

— If Kyiv is fundamentally opposed to the peace plan announced by Zelensky, what meaning does it see in participating in this negotiation process?
— Look, the negotiation process that took place in Riyadh between Moscow and Washington is probably significant for bilateral relations between the US and Russia, as there are many accumulated conflicts between them. They have the right to hold such negotiations and seek points of mutual agreement. However, any negotiation process discussing the end of the war without Ukraine's participation will not be accepted, as President Zelensky has also stated. We will not recognize the results of such negotiations.

President [Zelensky] states: the formula for the negotiation process is clearly defined — Ukraine, the European Union, the US, and Russia must participate. Any other formulas will not be accepted. Ukraine did not accept any ultimatums at the beginning of the war and will not accept them now.

— So, if Washington conducts negotiations without considering Ukraine's interests, Kyiv will reject such a process?
— I want to clarify this a bit. Today, nothing can be forced upon Ukraine. Any bilateral negotiations can be conducted within the framework of the rights of sovereign states, but they will not lead to the end of the war. We must clearly understand that Trump's statements (about Ukraine's NATO membership being impossible) are part of his political style. He is trying to set the rules of negotiation himself. However, the rules have already been established.

— But Trump's ability to exert pressure on Ukraine seems to be greater than Kyiv's pressure on Washington. The Economist called the agreement on natural resources between Kyiv and Washington "an offer Ukraine cannot refuse." AP described it as "colonialism." If this document does not include important security guarantees for Kyiv, can Ukraine refuse to sign it?
— First of all, let's consider the means of influence. Of course, we are somewhat dependent on our allies regarding military and financial assistance. However, such assistance was completely absent in the early days of the war, yet Ukraine was still able to stand firm.

Today, Ukraine has a reactivated military industry, and its forces are re-equipped with modern technologies. Moreover, Europe is showing more initiative regarding military assistance today. We are even seeing how the conservative part of Europe — countries like France, Germany, and Italy — are showing interest in supporting Kyiv.

Therefore, I would say that the means of influence are equal here. From an informational standpoint, the US appears dominant. But this is just another element of Trump's style.

— But the US is undoubtedly the largest financial partner for Ukraine, right?
— Yes, that is indisputable. They grant many permits for the supply of military equipment and provide important supply resources themselves. However, there is a paradox here: the main military equipment supplies are primarily coming from Europe. But, for example, the US produces key elements for aviation and even air defense (AD) systems, and US approval is required for these supplies.

Of course, Americans also play a very important role in supplying soldiers with equipment. Because some specific weapons are only available to them. And in terms of communication systems and missile defense, the US is the main producer. However, I wouldn’t interpret this as a means of influence. It is still a partnership relationship, which requires high-quality negotiations. This is especially significant considering Trump's style.

Now, speaking about the deal regarding rare underground metals, it should be noted that this initiative was originally put forward by Ukraine. Because in short-term wars, costs are not significant, but when you have been at war for three years, costs become very high, including for the US. Therefore, we are looking for compensation mechanisms. But they must be fair. That is, the US may have access to these resources, but it must be clearly tied to specific conditions for Ukraine.

What conditions does Ukraine want to include in this deal? First, the investments that the US will contribute must be clearly defined. Because military assistance is very important for us. We want to understand that within the framework of this deal, a certain amount of weapons will be supplied to Ukraine at a certain value. Especially regarding AD systems, we will need at least 20 Patriot systems, which will require approximately 32-35 billion dollars. Because we want to fully protect our sky.

Secondly, the revenue and participation share in this project must be clearly defined. This is still a deal for extracting natural resources. How much revenue will Ukraine receive, how will it receive these funds, can it manage them, and where can it direct them — these must be clear.

Thirdly, Ukraine demands security guarantees against Russia's renewed aggression in this deal. In any negotiation process, we firmly insist on the necessity of including this issue in the agreement. I believe these conditions will be included in the final agreement.

— You mentioned three conditions. Will Kyiv refuse to sign the agreement without them?
— Yes, they are very important. These are the fundamental conditions for Ukraine, and we need to clearly understand why this agreement is being made, what value it holds, and how it will function in the future.

— If Washington refuses to include security guarantees in the agreement, will Ukraine still sign it?
— The main question here is: why would Washington refuse security guarantees? If it is taking some resources or assets under common control, it should also be interested in guaranteeing their inviolability. Otherwise, it would be absolute nonsense. After all, this is a business project.

— Axios published a preliminary version of the agreement. It did not include the three important conditions you mentioned.
— Yes, but this was one of the initial versions of the agreement. There will still be many discussions of this kind. Negotiations are still ongoing. Ukraine is firmly standing its ground, and the US has its own point of view. But Ukraine will continue to push its demands.

This is a fundamentally normal and very comfortable negotiation format, where we are talking about mutually beneficial cooperation. Therefore, let the final document be prepared, and then we will exchange views on its content.

— Volodymyr Zelensky recently stated he is ready to step down from the presidency. He emphasized that he would do this in exchange for a peace agreement or Ukraine's NATO membership. Does this mean that elections could take place in Ukraine by the end of 2025?
— The president stated that if such a step is necessary for Ukraine to achieve peace and join NATO, he is ready to take it. However, in reality, the likelihood of such an "exchange" being proposed is very low.

Now, regarding elections, this is a completely absurd discussion. There is no historical example of elections being held in any country in a state of war. I do not understand this logic: how will elections affect the fact of aggression? After all, Ukraine is not the aggressor! The decision to launch a war against it was made by Putin.

Of course, once the state of war is lifted, presidential and parliamentary elections should be held within six months. However, there is currently a consensus in society regarding the impossibility of elections. It is impossible to ensure the security of polling stations. Military personnel fighting on the front cannot participate in elections nor can they be nominated as candidates. Additionally, more than 6 million Ukrainians have left the country. How can the voting process be organized for them? It is impossible to conduct the election process fully legally, fairly, and transparently. Everyone understands that as long as the war continues, elections are completely nonsensical.

At the same time, I also understand Russia's logic in this regard. Putin has experience in this from Georgia. After the war in 2008, elections were quickly organized there. After a while, [Mikhail] Saakashvili was politically weakened. He lost the elections, and power passed to [Bidzina] Ivanishvili's "Georgian Dream" party. As a result, Georgia now has a government that is fully pro-Russian. Putin thinks he can apply this method in Ukraine as well. But this is the consequence of not knowing Ukraine at all. Of course, such a scenario cannot be implemented here, but he still wants to try.

Moreover, Russia believes it can easily escalate tensions within Ukraine on the eve of elections with smaller investments, in a frozen, actually ongoing war situation. They want to increase pressure on the front line while spreading propaganda that "if pro-Russian candidates are elected, we will achieve a peace agreement." In short, holding presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine is only a technological interest for Putin, nothing more.

— This condition has been demanded several times not only by Russia but also by Trump.
— Yes, but I reiterate: they are softening the tone to show their readiness to negotiate with Russia. They are repeating certain theses regarding Ukraine, and this is one of them.

— Zelensky stated that 200,000 peacekeepers are needed to prevent a new Russian attack. However, America is not planning to send its troops for a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. Currently, there is talk of about 30,000 peacekeepers from Britain and France. But is this enough?
— The very fact that the deployment of peacekeeping forces is being discussed at the level of European leaders is significant. Just yesterday, it was unimaginable that European troops could be on Ukrainian territory.

Security guarantees rely on several elements. One of them is peacekeeping contingents. But they will not work on their own without other measures.

What do these other measures consist of? First and foremost, it involves reforming the military industry in Ukraine, sharply increasing the production of missiles and drones, modernizing the army, and expanding it. Before the large-scale invasion, the Ukrainian army had 220-250 thousand soldiers. Now, understanding all the risks, the army needs to be much larger. Providing for the army and its training is also part of the security guarantees. Building a closed sky system and supplying them with certain missiles is also included.

Within the framework of these complex measures, the issue of deploying international peacekeeping forces is being discussed. Whether American soldiers will participate in this mission is still a matter of debate.

Of course, approximately 150-200 thousand soldiers are required to deploy peacekeeping forces along the front line. For now, Europeans are indicating their readiness to send 35-40 thousand soldiers. They will mainly focus on protecting critical infrastructure facilities. However, this is the realistic scenario that some countries are willing to participate in. Countries like France, Britain, and Sweden are taking the initiative in this matter. This could be an important element for the overall security guarantee system. Discussions are ongoing, and several options regarding security guarantees have been put on the negotiation table.

The option of Ukraine joining NATO has not been ruled out either. Additionally, the deployment of modern weapons that can deter the enemy can also be considered as security guarantees.