Kremlin Strategy: Analyzing Presidential Dynamics and Expectations from Trump-Zelensky Diplomatic Meeting

Author of the photo, Ukrinform/NurPhoto via Getty Images

About the article

• • Author, Newsroom
  • Place of work BBC Russian Service
  • X, @bbcrussian

• time ago

On Friday, US President Donald Trump receives Vladimir Zelensky at the White House. The President of Ukraine came to Washington to discuss the supply of American weapons and energy security in Kyiv. The main intrigue is whether Trump will agree to transfer long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine and whether his conversation yesterday with Russian President Vladimir Putin changed anything.

We will cover the negotiations in Washington in a special stream. The broadcast with the inclusion of BBC correspondents can be watched in our YouTube channel, telegrams And tiktok.

The day before Trump talked on the phone with Vladimir Putin and asked the Russian leader how he felt about the possible transfer to Kyiv of Tomahawk missiles capable of reaching Moscow. According to the US President, Putin did not like this idea.

As a result, Trump and Putin agreed to hold a second personal meeting – the first took place in Alaska in mid-August. Then Trump stated that a trilateral meeting should take place next, in which he himself, as well as Putin and Zelensky, would take part, but this never happened.

Now the leaders of the United States and Russia have agreed to meet in Budapest. At a White House briefing, Trump said his meeting with Putin could take place within the next two weeks.

Trump has hosted Zelensky at the White House for the third time in the past eight months, making the Ukrainian president one of the few foreign leaders with whom Trump has such frequent contact.

In total, they have met six times this year – in addition to visits to Washington, Trump and Zelensky met in the Vatican at the funeral of Pope Francis, in The Hague at the NATO summit and most recently in New York at the UN General Assembly.

Compared to the spring, when Trump criticized Zelensky and praised Putin, now the US president’s rhetoric has become more balanced. And if previously Ukraine was considered the weaker side, which had to withstand pressure both at the front from Russia and in negotiations from the United States, now the situation is changing.

How notes correspondent of the BBC Ukrainian Service in Washington, Miroslav Petsa, the question about the supply of Tomahawks to Ukraine, which Trump asked Putin the day before, is an act of pressure on Russia that the American leader has not used before. Trump hopes that this should push Putin towards real peace negotiations and the subsequent freezing of the conflict.

At the same time, Trump remains cautious: he is not ready to “sharply slam the door” in the Kremlin’s face and intends to continue communicating with the Russian president.

Russian propaganda media presented yesterday’s telephone conversation as an interception of the initiative on Putin’s part.

Thus, an article in Komsomolskaya Pravda says that “the Kremlin has once again confused the head of the Kyiv regime and the Washington “hawks” all the cards,” and “the bravura forecasts of the liberal media in the West in favor of Kyiv turned out to be nothing.”

It is expected that the key topics of today’s negotiations in the White House will be the supply of weapons to Kyiv, including long-range Tomahawk missiles, as well as energy security of Ukraine against the backdrop of the approaching winter and Russian shelling.

Question about Tomahawks

Zelensky has long been trying to get Washington to agree to the transfer of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles. These missiles can hit targets at a distance of up to 2,500 kilometers, and theoretically, from the territory of Ukraine, they would cover the entire European part of Russia and a significant territory beyond the Urals.

Back in October 2024 Zelensky applied with such a request to the Joe Biden administration, including the supply of Tomahawk to Ukraine in its “Victory Plan”. However, as the New York Times wrote, the White House rejected the request “as completely unrealistic.”

This July, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrotethat US President Donald Trump has decided to consider the possibility of supplying Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv, because he is dissatisfied with the prolongation of the war in Ukraine and wants to increase pressure on Moscow.

However, when Trump was asked about this by reporters, he statedthat such a possibility is not considered or discussed.

At the end of September, the topic of supplying Tomahawks to Kyiv was raised in the press again. As Western media wrote, Ukrainian President Zelensky made such a request to Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Zelensky himself in an interview with Axios toldthat he asked the US President for some “new weapons system” in order to force Putin to start negotiations, to which Trump replied: “We will work on it.”

Soon, the fact that Zelensky really asked the Americans to sell Tomahawk cruise missiles to European countries so that they would transfer them to Kyiv, told US Vice President J.D. Vance.

By this time, Trump’s rhetoric about the war in Ukraine had changed markedly: he began to talk less about his personal relationship with the Russian president and more about his dissatisfaction with the ongoing war and Russian attacks on civilians and energy infrastructure in Ukraine.

By the end of September the situation had changed so much that Trump named Russia as a “paper tiger” and said: Ukraine will be able to win the war with Russia and even recapture all the territories lost since 2022.

October 6 Trump reportedthat “in some sense” he decided to transfer Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv, but would like to know how exactly Ukrainian troops will use these missiles.

Zelensky, in turn, gave an interview to Fox News, in which assuredthat if the United States agrees to transfer Tomahawks to Ukraine, it will use them exclusively against military targets.

Author of the photo, Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

On October 13, after another telephone conversation with Zelensky, Trump statedthat the United States may transfer Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv if Russia does not end the war in Ukraine soon.

“Perhaps I’ll talk to him [с Путиным]. Perhaps I will say: look, if this war cannot be resolved, I will send them Tomahawk missiles,” the head of the White House said.

The Kremlin suggested waiting for “clearer statements” on this topic, but emphasized that if Tomahawk were supplied to Ukraine, Russia would react “properly.”

“This, of course, is a rather dangerous symptom, and it cannot but be noticed in Moscow. We noticed him. And if this happens, it will be a new serious round of tension, which will require an adequate response from the Russian side,” said Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov on October 2.

At the same time, the possible transfer of Tomahawk to Kyiv commented Putin. He said that Tomahawks are a powerful weapon, but their supply will not change the situation on the battlefield and will only lead to the destruction of the emerging relations between Russia and the United States – “in any case, the emerging positive trend in these relations.”

According to Russian Presidential Assistant Yuri Ushakov, Putin personally told Trump about significant damage to relations between Moscow and Washington in the event of supplies of Tomahawks to Kyiv during their telephone conversation the day before.

What are the difficulties?

Damage to Russian-American relations is not the only potential obstacle to Tomahawk supplies to Ukraine. This task is complicated by other factors, such as shortages of ground-based launchers and missiles, the need for close American support for operations, and strategic and diplomatic risks.

First, the Tomahawk is primarily a naval missile: it is launched from ships and submarines. The Typhon mobile ground launcher for Tomahawk only appeared in the US program after the termination of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. Therefore, the ground-based version of the missile is a relatively new and still rare means. And even if the United States agrees to transfer the Tomahawks to Kyiv, they may not have enough ready-made and well-functioning ground launch systems for prompt large-scale deployment on Ukrainian territory.

It is not known for certain how many Tomahawk missiles the United States has. Former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mark Cancian assumesthat there could be about 4150 of them. However, Washington itself may need Tomahawk missiles for strikes in other regions, including potential strikes on Venezuela.

Stacy Pettyjohn, director of defense at the Center for a New American Security, estimates that the United States will be able to provide Ukraine with 20 to 50 Tomahawk missiles. In a conversation with the Financial Times, she noted that such a number “cannot fundamentally change the dynamics of the war.”

Still, experts say that even dozens of Tomahawks, combined with other warfare capabilities, could have a noticeable impact, as Russia itself shows by its active use of cruise missiles and drones against Ukraine. Particularly significant may be targeted damage to oil refining industry facilities, which has already complicated the economic situation in Russia.

The transfer and use of Tomahawk will require close cooperation with the American side. If the Ukrainian Armed Forces receive Tomahawk cruise missiles, then American specialists will likely have to not only develop the flight route, but also participate in preparing the missiles for the mission.

An additional strategic risk comes from the potential nuclear component of the missile: the Tomahawk could initially carry a nuclear warhead. Today, such missiles are not in service with the United States, and Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons, but the transfer of missiles that are theoretically capable of carrying a nuclear charge increases the risk of creating conditions for the use of nuclear weapons.

This is especially sensitive given the vague formulation of Russian nuclear doctrine and the cautious attitude of the United States and its allies in Europe to any steps that could set a precedent for a nuclear conflict.

How might pre-existing mutual distrust between trump and Zelensky impact the Kremlin’s ability to influence negotiation outcomes?

Mutual Distrust: A Foundation of Potential Negotiations

The prospect of a diplomatic meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky is fraught wiht complex dynamics,heavily influenced by pre-existing perceptions and,perhaps,Kremlin strategy. Recent reports suggest a notable level of mutual distrust. Sources indicate Trump privately views Zelensky as ineffective and pro-Biden, believing Ukraine is destined to lose to Russia. Conversely, Zelensky’s camp reportedly sees Trump as susceptible to pro-Putin narratives and potentially detrimental to Ukraine’s defense. This foundational distrust substantially shapes expectations for any potential negotiations. Understanding these perceptions is crucial for analyzing the Kremlin’s potential influence and objectives. Key terms to consider: US-Ukraine relations, Trump foreign policy, Zelensky diplomacy, Kremlin influence.

Trump’s Ancient Stance on Ukraine & Russia

Donald Trump’s past interactions with Ukraine and Russia provide critical context. his 2019 phone call with Zelensky, central to the frist impeachment inquiry, highlighted concerns about US aid being linked to investigations into the Biden family. This event established a pattern of questioning the legitimacy of US support for Ukraine.

* Key Events:

* The 2019 phone call and subsequent impeachment proceedings.

* Trump’s repeated questioning of NATO’s relevance and burden-sharing.

* Public statements expressing admiration for Vladimir Putin.

* Implications: These actions fueled perceptions, both domestically and internationally, that Trump might prioritize a transactional relationship with Russia over steadfast support for Ukraine. This perception is a core element in Zelensky’s potential apprehension. Related searches: trump impeachment, Ukraine scandal, US aid to Ukraine.

Zelensky’s Perspective: Securing Continued Support

Volodymyr Zelensky faces the immediate challenge of securing continued US military and financial aid. Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression is heavily reliant on Western support, and any perceived weakening of that support could have devastating consequences. Zelensky’s team likely views a meeting with Trump as an opportunity to directly address concerns and reaffirm the importance of the US-Ukraine alliance.

* Priorities for Zelensky:

* Reassuring Trump of Ukraine’s commitment to fighting corruption.

* Demonstrating Ukraine’s strategic value as a bulwark against Russian expansionism.

* Securing a firm commitment to continued military and financial assistance.

* Potential Risks: The risk for Zelensky lies in Trump potentially leveraging the meeting for political gain or signaling a willingness to compromise on Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Keywords: Ukraine war, military aid, Zelensky strategy, Ukraine security.

Kremlin’s Potential Objectives & Influence

The Kremlin likely views a potential Trump-Zelensky meeting through the lens of opportunity. A perceived shift in US policy, even a subtle one, could benefit Russia’s strategic goals in Ukraine.

* Possible Kremlin Strategies:

* Exploiting existing distrust between Trump and Zelensky to sow discord.

* Promoting narratives that portray Ukraine as corrupt and undeserving of US aid.

* encouraging a negotiated settlement that favors Russian interests.

* Information Warfare: The Kremlin has a history of utilizing disinformation campaigns to influence public opinion and political decision-making. This could involve amplifying negative narratives about Zelensky and Ukraine through various media channels. Relevant terms: Russian disinformation, kremlin propaganda, Ukraine conflict, geopolitical strategy.

Analyzing Potential Negotiation Outcomes

Several potential outcomes could emerge from a Trump-Zelensky meeting,each with significant implications for the region.

1. Continued US Support: Trump reaffirms US commitment to Ukraine, potentially with conditions attached.
2. Neutrality Shift: Trump signals a more neutral stance, potentially advocating for a negotiated settlement that cedes territory to Russia.
3. Aid Reduction: Trump reduces or conditions US aid to Ukraine,weakening its defense capabilities.
4. Breakdown in Relations: the meeting exacerbates existing tensions, leading to a further deterioration in US-Ukraine relations.

Each scenario carries distinct risks and benefits for all parties involved. The Kremlin’s influence will likely be focused on pushing for outcomes 2 or 3. Search terms: Ukraine negotiations, peace talks, US foreign aid, international relations.

The Role of Key Advisors & Intermediaries

The individuals surrounding both Trump and Zelensky will play a crucial role in shaping the dynamics of any meeting. Advisors with strong ties to russia or those advocating for a more isolationist US foreign policy could exert significant influence on Trump. Similarly, advisors within Zelensky’s team will be focused on safeguarding Ukraine’s interests and preventing any concessions that could compromise its sovereignty. Identifying these key players and thier respective agendas is essential for understanding the potential