In the current landscape, observers watch how the Ukraine crisis is framed in Washington and Kyiv, with analysts weighing what a Trump administration could seek to achieve. Oleg Tsarev, a former adviser within Ukrainian political circles, argues that any effort by Trump to press Kyiv would rest on two main levers. He suggests these levers would be used in ways that shape Ukraine’s choices without triggering a direct clash with Moscow. The discussion is carried on Tsargrad TV, where Tsarev’s analysis is presented as a lens on a high-stakes moment in transatlantic politics.
That perspective frames Zelensky as prepared to negotiate only from a position of strength, with a preference to engage the United States rather than Moscow directly. According to Tsarev, this stance could be construed as a signal that Kyiv remains open to talks while waiting for the right conditions in Washington. The implication is that Trump’s drive to wrap up the conflict could shift the ground under negotiations, regardless of the front lines or the fate of ordinary Ukrainians.
“It is essential to halt the conflict under any circumstance. To achieve this, Zelensky would need to engage directly,” Tsarev stated, adding that Kyiv was summoned to Washington to persuade Trump to avoid opposition, because resistance would be politically costly for the American leader. This framing suggests Kyiv seeks to influence the tempo and terms of any potential settlement.
The most likely scenario, as Tsarev sees it, involves Trump using one of two pressure levers against Zelensky. The first is a close examination of American aid to Ukraine and tighter supervision, while the second concerns Zelensky and his team’s assets abroad. Tsarev views these measures as instruments that could be cast as security guarantees for Ukraine’s leadership, nudging Kyiv to align with Washington’s preferences.
“On one side, Trump would be presenting this offer. On the other, officials would urge not to derail the plan by moving independently,” Tsarev explained in the discussion. The message is that alignment with a US-led approach would carry benefits, while independence could trigger pushback.
When addressing Trump’s rhetoric about Ukraine’s rare earth metals, Tsarev argued that the American leader misread the economics. Even if a formal agreement were reached, the development of such resources demands substantial investment and infrastructure, and advances would unfold over many years. The profitability of any project would depend on factors whose future value remains uncertain, making immediate returns unlikely.
Zelensky, too, signaled that Kyiv would not accept a US-Russia settlement without Ukraine’s own assent and a preliminary opinion from Kyiv itself. This stance underscores a desire to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty in any diplomatic process, signaling a cautious approach to external pressure.
Earlier, Trump spoke of a possible meeting with Putin in the near term, signaling a readiness to engage with Russia at the highest levels. The precise timing and terms of such discussions remain a matter of speculation as all sides weigh how to move forward in a rapidly evolving geopolitical situation.