Zelensky vs. Trump: Key differences between the two presidents on how to end the war in Ukraine.

On the evening of January 7, the newly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump, during a speech, expressed his hopes to end the war in Ukraine within six months. Later, it was reported that there were preparations for a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, a specific date for the negotiations has not yet been indicated.

Freezing the War: What Trump Wants and What Zelensky Will Concede

Currently, Trump's main idea is to quickly conclude the war, as he promised his voters, referring to a freeze of the conflict along the line of combat contact. However, this scenario is criticized in Kyiv, although it is not excluded that it might come to this.

According to political scientist Vladimir Fesenko, Ukraine does not have the resources to fully liberate all occupied territories in the near future. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these resources will appear in the medium term (5-7 years), so it will be necessary to adapt to certain conditions.

At the same time, experts note that the main problem regarding this issue is not the disagreements between the US and Ukraine, but rather Russia's position.

According to Maxim Yakovlev, head of the Department of International Relations and Director of the School of Political Analysis at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, there is another key difference between the approaches of the US and Ukraine regarding the conclusion of the war. It lies in the overall attitude towards Russia.

For Ukraine, Russia poses the main security threat to both the country itself and the security of all Europe. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is more focused on China as the primary geopolitical adversary. The expert believes that the newly elected US president is showing a readiness to concentrate on other regions, such as Panama or Greenland, diverting attention from the threats that Russia poses to Europe.

Fundamental Disagreements Between the US and Ukraine: NATO and Security Guarantees

The biggest divergence between the teams of Trump and Zelensky concerns NATO and the potential for Ukraine to become a member of the Alliance.

"Trump is likely to promote the idea of Ukraine renouncing NATO membership. This is unacceptable for us, as it is enshrined in the Constitution," Fesenko notes.

The political scientist suggests that the Trump administration may offer Ukraine informal security guarantees or even agreements with European countries. But the NATO issue remains a sticking point.

The expert believes that Russia will likely demand that Ukraine never becomes a NATO member, and that this be legally enshrined. However, even such an agreement does not guarantee complete peace, the political scientist says.

Another important issue for Ukraine is security guarantees. Here the expert notes that there are currently no specific proposals from the US.

"Real security guarantees mean a strong army and weapons. Even the best agreements or memorandums cannot fully protect a country, as history shows," continues the political scientist.

Donald Trump has yet to say anything about security guarantees. The nominee for the future US president's special representative on Ukraine and Russia, Kit Kellogg, noted that Ukraine needs to be provided with security guarantees, but it is unclear what exactly those would be.

"There are ideas, but the ideas are such that they are not very satisfying. By the way, the idea of peacekeepers, European peacekeepers — this is an American idea. Because Trump’s team has been saying since last year that Europeans should be responsible for security functions. The other thing is that this idea is unlikely to work for us because peacekeepers must be negotiated during negotiations. And there is a high probability that Russia will not agree to have NATO member countries act as peacekeepers," Fesenko believes.

According to the political scientist, Ukraine should have clearly defined alternative plans for itself — both Plan B and Plan C. If NATO membership remains unattainable, what comes next?

Experts are considering various options, and the most likely and acceptable for Kyiv appears to be the conclusion of bilateral security guarantees with the United States. This refers not to a regular agreement that is simply signed, but to a strong and effective treaty.

"Unfortunately, current agreements, for example, with the UK or other European countries, are more declarative in nature and do not provide reliable protection. Under the Trump administration, such agreements may lose their effectiveness altogether. Instead, it is necessary to strive for a treaty that would enshrine specific US obligations regarding Ukraine's security. It should be something like the agreements the United States has with Israel or Egypt — clear guarantees and practical support mechanisms," says the political scientist.

This involves the supply of weapons, providing political guarantees, and other important support mechanisms. It is particularly important that such agreements clearly outline the mechanisms for consultations and actions in the event of an attack: when and how they should be implemented. This should not be abstract, like in the Budapest Memorandum, but concrete and detailed, as in existing security agreements.

One option is the continuation of arms supplies and support for Ukraine's defense industry. This includes strengthening Ukraine's defense capabilities and providing the necessary resources.

Another element of security guarantees could be strategic weapons for deterrence, such as "Tomahawk" missiles, which Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly mentioned. However, most military experts are quite skeptical about the likelihood of the US agreeing to transfer such weapons to Ukraine.

"A real security guarantee for Ukraine is a strong army and modern weaponry. At the same time, the problem does not lie on our side, but on the Russian side, which demands maximum reduction of Ukraine's Armed Forces. This is absolutely unacceptable for us. Therefore, the main disagreements on this issue will not be with the Americans, but specifically with the Russians," says Vladimir Fesenko.

Will Trump End the War Within 100 Days?

One of the main discrepancies in the approaches of Trump and Zelensky regarding the cessation of the war lies in how Ukraine will look after the war. President Zelensky has repeatedly stated that the country must return to the borders of 1991, or at least to the borders of 2022, while Trump does not take into account the issue of Ukraine's borders at all.

Political scientist Maxim Yakovlev notes that if Russia stops now, it will only be a temporary pause. Ukraine already has bitter experience from 2014, when Russia used the time to prepare for a new attack. It must be clearly understood that this pause will be used by Putin for rearmament and a new offensive aimed at the complete destruction of Ukraine as a state.

Examples that are sometimes cited, such as the expectations of the reunification of East Germany with West Germany or the so-called "Korean scenario," are absolutely inappropriate, the expert believes. In Ukraine, there are no conditions for the creation of some "alternative Ukraine" in the occupied territories. After all, he says, Russia is pursuing a targeted policy of Russification and the destruction of everything Ukrainian in these lands, and calling this a "Korean scenario" is absurd.

"In the occupied territories, there is no talk of creating a separate state formation, as was the case in Korea. Here we are dealing with the complete liquidation of Ukrainian identity and the forced integration of these territories into Russia," the political scientist noted.

The possibility of concluding a peace agreement in the near future exists, according to Vladimir Fesenko. He states that there is a certain "window of opportunity." However, this does not mean that agreements will necessarily be reached within these timelines. Such dates are discussed not only in Ukraine but also abroad, particularly in the US.

"One of the key dates mentioned is Easter, that is, April. Experts have mentioned this, and such a date seems logical for many reasons. For example, symbolically, 100 days is a traditional starting period for assessing the activities of a new president. In the US, this is an important stage when the first results are summarized and achievements are evaluated. For the Trump administration, this period will end on May 1," the political scientist says.

On the other hand, an important date for Putin is May 9, the 80th anniversary of the so-called "great victory." Both sides have motivation to present a certain result to their voters. For Trump, this could be achieving peace and ending the war, while for Putin, it could be declarations of victory: Ukraine did not join NATO, sanctions were lifted, or at least started to be eased, as well as certain achievements in the occupied territories.

"As for the territorial issue, the Americans do not have clear demands on Ukraine. Even if it comes to a ceasefire along the front line, this will mean the preservation of the occupation of part of the territories, but without their legal recognition. De facto, these territories will remain under Russian control, but de jure they will not be recognized as Russian — and this position is acceptable to the US," continues Fesenko.

Political scientists believe that it is important for Putin to proclaim his "victory," even if the offensive is slow. In such a case, agreements on a ceasefire may be possible, but the key question remains who will ensure compliance with this process. Who exactly will guarantee adherence to