Volodomyr Zelensky has had a tough job since February 2022. And since the election of Donald Trump it has become a whole lot tougher

By Tom Arms

Volodomyr Zelensky has had a tough job since February 2022. And since the election of Donald Trump it has become a whole lot tougher.

In just the past ten days the American president and his acolytes have gone over his head and behind his back to negotiate directly with Russia’s Vladimir Putin; accused Zelensky of being a dictator; demanded virtual total control of the Ukrainian economy; ruled out Ukrainian membership of NATO and the return of territory; accused Ukraine of starting the war and undermined negotiations by announcing that Russia “holds the cards.”

Trump has also damaged relations with NATO allies by cutting them out of any negotiations about Ukraine’s future, despite the fact that Ukraine is in Europe and the Europeans have contributed more to its defense then the US.

But hold on. Zelensky and his European allies have a few cards of their own.

The biggest ones involve cash. Russia is spending and leaking money and earning less and less while its bills pending pile grows bigger and bigger.

Let’s start with its Sovereign Wealth Fund (aka National Wealth Fund or NWF). This has been the main source of ready cash for Putin’s “special military operation.” In January 2022, the NWF coffers held $210 billion. At the start of this year, the fund had dwindled to $116 billion. But wait, it’s even worse than that. Almost all of the war spending comes from liquid reserves which have shrunk more than 75 percent from $130 billion to $40 billion.

At the current rate of spending, Putin will run out of liquid cash in less than a year. His borrowing options are limited. The IMF and World Bank are out of the question, as are western commercial banks. This leaves the Chinese who would doubtless drive a hard bargain.

Russia does have an additional $335 billion in assets held in western banks. These were frozen at the start of the war and Ukraine is receiving about $1 billion a year in interest from this money. There have been moves to hand over all the money to Ukraine, but this would set a dangerous legal precedent as the funds are protected by international law.

Russia’s other main revenue source is its oil and gas. It has switched most of its sales to China and India. But those countries are taking advantage of the war to demand discounts of up to 50 percent. On top of that, they are paying roubles, the value of which has plummeted by half since 2022.

Russia is also running out of people—soldiers and workers. Defense manufacturing is swallowing up an estimated 22 percent of all factory jobs. Wages in munitions factories have doubled so that defense spending now swallows 40 percent of the federal budget. Its military has suffered an estimated 800,000 casualties.

However, Ukraine also has major problems. The constant missile attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure means that Ukraine’s GDP has shrunk by 25% since the start of the war.

Which brings us to the battlefield. Russia is advancing, but at a snail’s pace. The two opposing armies have settled into a World War I-type stalemate complete with trenches.

The standstill is largely down to 21st century battle techniques. Both sides are heavily reliant on drones and satellite surveillance; Ukraine more so because of its smaller army. This means that a soldier can’t advance more than a few feet before being spotted by a satellite and taken out by a drone.

The Ukrainians rely primarily on three satellite systems: America’s Starlink system, a German system developed by Rheinmetall and a Finnish satellite system. Of these the most effective is Starlink because it is able to provide real-time battlefield surveillance and intelligence. If the US were to withdraw Starlink, Zelensky would have to pay for costly commercial satellites and the intelligence would take longer to gather and process.

When it comes to weaponry, the Russians would clearly have the edge if Trump pulled the American plug. Most important would be missile defense systems. Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are all providing surface to air missile defences which can defend against most missile and air attacks. But only the American Patriot missiles are effective against hypersonic Russian missiles. In addition, European stocks of surface to air systems have been depleted by the war and its defense industries are unable to meet demand.

One of Zelensky’s unused tactics is conscription. Ukraine’s volunteer army currently stands at 980,000 against Russia’s 1.5 million. It is reckoned that conscription would swell the army’s ranks by 1.5 to 2 million. But all the polls indicate that the move would be highly unpopular.

Finally, there is the possibility of Ukrainian attacks on Russia. So far these have been limited to the Kursk salient and a handful of drone attacks. The Ukrainians have been held back by Washington which is frightened of escalation. But then Zelensky might be faced with escalate or die if Trump withdraws American support.

World Review

The European tag team of Starmer and Macron is off to Washington next week. The British Prime Minister and the French President will be trying to persuade Trump to save the Western Alliance by continuing to back Ukraine.

It will be a difficult if almost impossible task given the flood of anti-Zelensky, anti-European and pro-Russian rhetoric that has been pouring out of Washington. But they must but try.

Macron will be the first to arrive. On Monday he will sit down with President Trump on Monday.

The French president has taken the lead in trying to rally Europe-wide support for Ukraine with two Paris summits within a few days of each other. He has argued for years that the danger of American isolationism required Europe to increase its defences to fill the American vacuum.

At the summits he proposed that European countries despatch a peacekeeping force of up to 30,000 troops to guard key parts of Ukraine’s infrastructure. They would be supported by Western air and sea power.

Keir Starmer arrives at the White House on Thursday. The British took the lead in supporting Ukraine and continue to do so. The prime minister supports the idea of a peacekeeping force, but only as part of a ceasefire agreement and only with “an American backstop.”

Starmer has been vague about what the backstop would involve, but it is likely that he would want a guarantee of US air support.

However, the peacekeeping proposal could be dead in the water before it reaches the Oval Office. Germany is opposed to it. Chancellor Olof Scholz said such a proposal is premature and would be a serious escalation. Vladimir Putin has rejected any deal that involves European troops based in Ukraine.

________________________

What are the negotiating positions in Ukraine? There are four actors, only two of which have started talking: The US, Russia, Ukraine and Europe.

Donald Trump’s immediate objective is clear: Stop the fighting. And he appears ready to concede victory to Russia to achieve that aim. Longer-term, Trump clearly wants to withdraw American military support from Europe and move it into the Indo-Pacific region. The US president also appears to want rehabilitate Russia in order to gain access to that country’s natural resources.

Vladimir Putin wants Ukraine. In the short term he wants recognition for the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Donbas Region (including parts which it has not occupied). He also wants guarantees that Ukraine will be demilitarized; will not be allowed to join NATO and that no western (European or American) troops will be based in Ukraine. He also wants a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. Putin wants to win so that he can use victory in Ukraine as a springboard to exert Russian influence over Eastern Europe and beyond so that Russia is once again a Great Power.

Ukraine’s wants are simpler. It wants Russia out of its territory and guarantees that it will be protected in the future through membership of NATO. In the short-term Volodomyr Zelensky will agree to a ceasefire along the current front line if it is backed up by European/American peacekeepers.

Europe is riddled with differences. Despite what many Americans think, Europe is not one country. It is 27 members of the EU, Britain and a few small states. But with a few exceptions, Europe is united in wanting to contain a resurgent Russia and regards Ukraine as fighting a war on its behalf. Europeans regard NATO and American support as crucial in their aims. Europe—as a collection of countries—has given more aid to Ukraine than anyone else. After years of American pressure they are increasing defense spending and building up their militaries to replace American troops. But it takes time and they face an uphill task persuading Donald Trump to give them that time.

___________________

Here’s the good news: Donald Trump cannot unilaterally decide to withdraw from NATO. In December 2023 the NATO Enhancement Act was passed by Congress (co-sponsored by the current Secretary of State Marco Rubio). This bill required the president to seek a two-thirds majority of the Senate before withdrawing from the NATO Alliance.

Now for the terrible news: Trump doesn’t have to withdraw from the alliance to render it ineffective. Article Five of the 1949 NATO Treaty says that an attack on one is considered an attack on all, BUT, it leaves it to each country to decide how to respond.

Also, as commander-in-chief, the president has the right to cut or withdraw troops from any part of the world without congressional approval. In 2020 Trump ordered the removal of 12,000 US troops from Germany, seriously reducing America’s ability to rapidly reinforce the European theatre.

_____________________

Zelensky offered Trump access to Ukraine’s rich mineral resources to help pay for continued US support. Trump countered, according to a memo discovered by The Daily Telegraph, with a demand that Zelensky effectively handover half of his country’s economy. Furthermore, that the deal would be a payment for past American aid and would not guarantee future support.

Ukraine’s mineral resources—especially vital rare earths—are estimated to be worth $15 trillion. Control of them would alleviate Washington’s concern about China’s stranglehold on the mining of rare earth minerals.

Trump has proposed that Ukraine and the US set up a joint company which will allow the US to take half of all revenues received by the Ukraine for the extraction of any mineral resources. The US would also receive half of the financial value of all new licenses issued to third parties and reserves the right of first refusal for the purchase of all future mineral rights licenses.

The proposed arrangement says the US would also be given substantial control of ports, railways and other means of transporting the minerals as well as other infrastructure involved in mining operations.

The agreement would be subject to US law rather than Ukrainian law and the US “shall have the exclusive right to establish selection criteria, terms and conditions” of all future licenses and projects.”

US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has warned Ukraine to take the deal immediately or face the consequences. The proposed contract has been described as leaving Ukraine with a choice between territorial violation by Russia or economic violation by the US. Zelensky has rejected it.

______________________

Germans troop to the polls in an easily predictable election. The centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) led by Friedrich Merz and the CDU’s Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU) have for months been predicted to win the biggest slice of the vote—30 percent.

That is not so interesting. What is interesting is that the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) are being pushed into third place with an estimated 16 percent of the vote. The number two position will be occupied by the far-right neo-Nazi Alternativ fur Deutschland (Afd) with an estimated 20 percent of the vote.

Merz will have to form a coalition. Only once since World War Two, has a single party won an outright majority in the Bundestag. This was in 1957 when Konrad Adenauer’s CDU/CSU won 50.2 percent of the vote.

So coalitions are the German norm. But with whom will Merz offer to coalesce. He flirted with the AfD before the elections to try and force anti-immigration legislation through the legislature and was roundly condemned for it. There is an agreement – called the “Brandenmauer”—among the mainstream parties to refuse to work with the AfD.

Merz says he will maintain the Brandenmauer or firewall. This leaves the SPD or current Chancellor Olaf Scholz. But Scholz’s party may not secure enough seats to help Merz create a coalition. The liberal FDP and the far-left parties are unlikely to pass the five percent threshold which allows them representation, leaving only the Greens as an additional coalition partner.

One of the reasons the Scholz-led government collapsed because of the difficulties of balancing the competing interests in a three-party coalition. It looks like Germany is heading for another three-way, only with different parties. It also looks as if it is heading for months of political bargaining and possibly another election when Europe is embroiled in a major crisis.

_________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

Read: Observations of an Expat – Ukraine: Europe Missed A Trick