‚We Are All Running Out of Time‘: An Exclusive Interview with Ukraine’s Ex-Foreign Minister

Kyiv 7. března 2025 Sdílet na Facebooku Sdílet na Twitteru Sdílet na LinkedIn Tisknout Kopírovat url adresu Zkrácená adresa Kopírovat do schránky Zavřít

Can you tell me, how would you describe what happened at the White House between President Zelensky and President Trump in just one word?
Super-crisis.

Super-crisis.
Yes, that's what happened at the White House, and it will go down in history in textbooks on diplomacy, politics, negotiation, and all subjects. 

So, what now? Should President Zelensky apologize for the heated argument at the White House, or do you think it was good that he stood up to Trump?
Well, he already made his move roughly two days ago when he posted a long text on social media, saying that he regrets what happened at the White House, that it shouldn't have happened this way, that he's looking forward to working under the strong leadership of President Trump, and that Ukraine is ready for negotiations. President Trump referred to this message in his address to the Congress, and now U.S. and Ukrainian officials have resumed contact. I think that the White House and Bankova, which is the street name where Ukraine's president office is, will keep working together. But, of course, the decision to suspend arms deliveries to Ukraine remains. We heard that intelligence sharing has been put on hold as well. And all of this was done following the crisis in the Oval Office, and it has not yet been revoked, even after the resumption of contact between the White House and Kyiv. In that sense, we are in the worst position today.

As far as I know, you previously said that it would be a critical moment in the war if President Trump announced the end of U.S. military aid to Ukraine. And that happened. Are you worried that Ukraine could lose the war to Russia without U.S. support and shared intelligence?
It definitely significantly worsens the capabilities of the Ukrainian army. However, the immediate consequences of this decision will not be felt on the frontlines. But as the war progresses, if this decision is not revoked, the impact of these decisions will be felt more and more. And then, since we have some time in our pocket, how much this crisis can be mitigated depends on three factors. First, how much can Ukraine ramp up its production of weapons? Second, how many more weapons can Ukraine and our European partners produce and procure in the world and deliver to Ukraine? And third, of course, whether at a certain stage in negotiations, these U.S. decisions on arms and intel can be revoked. So the final answer to your question depends on how these three questions will be answered. But, what happened when this decision was announced, puts our army in a much more difficult situation. And this is why I urged not to allow this to happen.

And how can the U.S. position on arms and intel be revoked? How can the US-Ukrainian partnership be fixed? You said that Zelensky made his move, but is this enough? Because you mentioned on Instagram that Ukraine will need to offer Trump something.
Well, my understanding is that the United States will keep Ukraine on the hook. This hook will be this decision on sending weapons and sharing intel. And in return, they will demand further concessions from Ukraine in negotiations on the ceasefire. This is how it seems it is going to evolve.

And can Zelensky still be at the table with Trump?
Yes, I have no doubts about this. Do not over-exaggerate how Trump treats foreign leaders. Today, he calls you a dictator. Then you do what he wants and he calls you a nice guy and admires your leadership. Then you do something that he dislikes again and he says that he does not see a way to work with you. Then you do something good, something that he wants again, and he changes his mind. So I have no doubts that as long as President Trump will be satisfied with President Zelensky's approach to negotiations on the ceasefire, he will be an acceptable figure for him. But the moment something goes wrong, all the might of the Trump and Musk information machine will attack and assault Zelensky and start destroying him.

Is the rare earth minerals deal also a key to any future talks? Is it a good bargain for Ukraine?
It's not a bargain anymore. It's done. This is it. And both sides understand it. The signatures are just a technicality now. So it's off the table because it's done, completed. The U.S. achieved what they wanted. And to be honest, from the very beginning I said that there was zero chance that this deal would not be signed. It was just a matter of the final wording of this document.

And is it a good deal for Ukraine?
In the current text, as it stands, I don't see big threats. The way it is framed and perceived by public opinion is that it is bad, because people don't like to give away anything, by definition. And that's how it was framed in the public discourse. But actually, the current text does not imply that Ukraine gives away anything. It's more of a joint investment or joint exploration agreement. Of course, the situation may change with the conclusion of the second agreement, which will be on the fund itself, that is, on the fund that will run the investments and assets. So that remains to be seen. But for the time being, I don't see this deal as a strategic problem for Ukraine.

And are there any security guarantees in the deal right now? Because that's what Ukraine wants.
No, to the best of my knowledge, this is not in the text. It's a purely economic agreement. This is the biggest disadvantage of it. But to the best of my understanding, the United States never held the position that they would include any specific security guarantee in the text. They just agreed to mention in the text the need for security guarantees for Ukraine. And they left this issue for further negotiations.

But again, this deal was unavoidable. When  I say that in its current form, this deal does not pose a strategic threat, I do not mean that this is a strong deal. But when you have something unavoidable, you just try to make sure that it's not awfully bad for you. And this deal is not awfully bad. That's it. But is it perfect? No. Does it leave a lot of room for maneuvering for the United States? It does. And the reason why the whole crisis in the White House happened is precisely that Zelensky tried to push Trump on the specific security guarantees he is willing to give Ukraine following the conclusion of this agreement. And Trump basically said, I give you my word that everything will be fine. And Zelensky was unhappy with that. That's how it all went wrong afterwards. So don't get me wrong, this is not a perfect deal, but there was zero chance from the very beginning that it wouldn't be signed. The question was only about what the final text would be. And this text is not awful.

So what should any future security guarantees look like, in your opinion as the former minister of foreign affairs?
Well, from everything that is being discussed now, I see ideas and initiatives that may help establish a ceasefire, but they will not prevent Putin from eventually breaking it and restarting the war again. Maybe I'm not aware of something. Perhaps there is something more in the pipeline, but from everything I've heard so far, these are more reassurance measures than security guarantees.

I understand that. So what are the perfect security guarantees you would expect from any deal with the U.S. or Europe?
Now it is without the United States playing on the side of Ukraine and Europe. So it is very difficult to imagine such security guarantees. Since if the United States is playing on the Russian side now, whatever Ukrainians and Europeans do to contain Russia, Russia will always find a way out. This is the fundamental problem. At a certain point, if we really want peace in Ukraine, the United States should realign with Europe on this. I do not see that coming in the meantime.

So, in a nutshell, it is good that countries are discussing stepping up defense and increasing deliveries of weapons to Ukraine. It is good that they're talking about potentially sending soldiers to Ukraine. But we have to be clear that these are not combat troops. No one is talking about combat troops. It is good that Europe will be developing its own defense industries and intelligence capabilities. But these are not things that can stop Russia. These are things that can make Ukraine and Europe stronger in opposing Russia.

So what can stop Russia?
Russia can be stopped if Europe and America realign again, if Europe begins to finally invest what it has to invest in its own defense, and if all of the measures to contain Russia that had been implemented between 2022 and 2024 are implemented in full and not in 30 or 50 %, as is always the case. Then the deterioration of Russia's economy will create favorable conditions for real talks with Moscow, because Moscow only makes concessions when it feels weak.

Would any realigning include Ukraine joining NATO?
I don't think it's going to happen in the short term perspective, but it would be a dramatic and unforgivable mistake to take this issue off the table.

But Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, for example, claims that it would spark World War III. American President Donald Trump says Zelensky is gambling with World War III right now. So how would you address their concerns?
Well, Fico and Trump come and go. That's how I would address it.

In your opinion, should Ukraine agree to give up some land in exchange for an immediate ceasefire?
But ceasefire agreements do not imply giving up land. Ceasefire agreements imply that both sides stop shooting and then begin talks on who gets what as part of the peace deal. So this will not be the most critical issue at this stage of negotiations.

But listen, neither Ukrainian nor Russian officials will be in a position to cede territory or to agree to any kind of dubious statutes. For both of them, these territories are constitutionally parts of their territories. Of course, for Ukraine, it's legal. For Russia, it's illegal. But Russia doesn't care. It is in their constitution. And to the best of my knowledge, and I have been saying this for months: Russia never negotiates on what it believes belongs to it. This is why Russia never held a single round of negotiations on Crimea. And to those who would counter argue with saying that they engaged in negotiations on Donbass and Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Yes, but within the framework of the Minsk process, they always considered these regions as breakaway parts of Ukraine and they were willing to reintegrate them in Ukraine on their terms.

So two sides will come to negotiate land with the texts of their constitutions in hand, saying that these lands are theirs. It will be quite a challenge. Of course, no one is going to concede their territories, because, according to the law, this would be high treason. Those responsible would be prosecuted eventually.

And do you, like Zelensky, worry that the world's major powers - the U.S. and Russia - might reach an agreement without Ukraine?
I'm pretty certain that they will be happy to reach an agreement without Ukraine. The problem, for them, is that this agreement cannot be implemented without Ukraine. They will have to talk to us.

And the U.S. and Europe have said that they don't want Ukraine to be left out of the talks, correct?
Yes. And more broadly speaking, if Ukraine is left out of the talks, it means that Europe is also left out and in the end Trump will praise himself for making the greatest deal of the century. But Ukraine and Europe will remain exposed to the threat of an emboldened Russia. So Ukraine is not alone in this fight.

You've already mentioned that Europe is stepping up in arms enrichment of the continent. Do you think that Europe is doing enough to support Ukraine right now? Can Europe replace the halted U.S. military support?
Europe has made a lot of right statements and decisions and has held very good meetings recently. This is all very encouraging right now. We're speaking on a day when the European Council is supposed to make a historic decision on what everyone was urging Europe to do: go to the market and get more money for investments in defense Industries. This seems to be happening right as we speak, which is a real breakthrough. The last unresolved question is about taking over Russian frozen assets. Once all of this is done, I will say that Europe did all the right things. But the question of timing remains. As all of these decisions are being deliberated, drafted, adopted and prepared for implementation, the Ukrainian army is fighting, shooting its Patriot missiles and artillery shells and losing equipment on the battlefield. So don't get me wrong, I appreciate the European efforts. I appreciate, in particular, the role of Czechia. But timing is everything. Everything must be done very fast. We are all running out of time.

And can Europe replace the U.S. Patriots?
Europe can not replace the United States on two things, simply because they do not exist in Europe in sufficient quantities. These are Patriot missiles and intelligence. The only alternative to Patriots is SAMP/T, the French-Italian air defense, but it just doesn't exist in sufficient quantities. The production of these missiles is so small.

And it takes a lot of time to produce these missiles.
Absolutely. When you see reports from Ukraine about the increased number of airstrikes, of missile and drone strikes, in recent days, it's not an accident. Putin knows what he’s doing. He wants our air defense to shoot out our interceptors, knowing that new deliveries are not coming. He wants our cities to be left exposed to his attacks, believing that it will make Ukraine more conceding and more flexible in the upcoming negotiations.

So we are discussing arms and deterrence and the current war. Would you say that Ukraine regrets giving up its nuclear weapons in the 90s? Do you think that the West kept its promise to guarantee Ukraine security without them?
The West did not keep its promise, of course not. But today, in 2025, 31 years after the signing of the Budapest Memorandum, it just doesn't make sense to regret anything anymore. What makes sense is seeking solutions.

And is the solution to obtain nuclear weapons again?
No, it's a mockery. No one is going to get them. It's good when politicians and experts make this point, because it sells well to public opinion. But this is very misleading. Ukraine is not going to get nuclear weapons for a very simple reason: If it decides to do so, all of its remaining partners will turn their backs on Ukraine, including Europe.

Politico, quoting undisclosed sources, writes about secret discussions between Trump's team and the Ukrainian opposition, former PM Yulia Timoshenko and members of the party led by former President Petro Poroshenko. Does this undermine Zelensky's reputation in your opinion?
In this very specific context of what happened over the last week or so, yes, it does.

I have to ask you, because you left the Ukrainian government last September, do you want to come back and help negotiate the end of the war?
No, I'm pretty certain that President Zelensky is sufficiently skilled, talented and experienced to hold any kind of negotiations. I'm doing what I can to help my country, which is fighting in the war of narratives, that is, for the perception of what is happening, and talking behind the scenes to different people with influence or with the decision makers themselves. I want my country to get the best out of what is happening, but I do not necessarily have to be in the government to be able to do so.

I had to ask because Politico reported that your departure was forced. Is that true?
It wasn't forced. It would have been forced if I had opposed the decision of the president, but I didn't. My working ethics implies that if the president five years ago asked me to do a certain job and I told him: thank you, Mr. President, I accept and will do my best. And then later he tells me that he wants someone else to do this job, all I can say is: thank you, Mr. President, I did my best. And that's what I did.

In the world of Dimitry Kuleba, how should the war end?
The war is going to end when Russian imperial ambitions are gone and Russia accepts Ukraine's independence and its belonging to the West. I do not see that coming in the near future. Therefore, I'm afraid the war will continue one way or another. It may be less intensified and not at the scale that it is now, but Putin will continue to try to destroy Ukraine by all means available to him. There is a lot of struggle ahead, but we should not give up until we secure this future for Ukraine and Russia accepts who we are and respects us.

Can you imagine that your country will stay divided and some of the parts will stay occupied?
It can happen, but you lose territories only when you accept the loss. As long as you do not accept it and keep looking for ways to regain them, the chance remains. History has proved this time and time again.

Looking back to history, can we find a scenario that we could use to help us with thinking about the future of Ukraine? I’m thinking perhaps of Germany, maybe Korea. What else?
Czechia.

Czechia, right.
Alsace. For 41 years it was part of Germany and then it returned to France.

Can you find a specific scenario in the past and use it for Ukraine?
I think we should be less focused on history. I just gave you the case of Alsace, but history is always the same. On the one hand, it keeps repeating itself, but on the other hand every situation is special. There will not be a copy-paste scenario for Ukraine, even if some similarities will always be there. But again, I would like to emphasize: you lose when you accept the loss. As long as you do not accept the loss and you keep fighting, you have a chance to win. For example, Czechia during the World War II and France, Charles de Gaulle. Many people like to compare Zelensky's position with the position of Winston Churchill, but I actually always believed that his specific situation is closer to that of Charles de Gaulle, who was in exile in the United Kingdom. His partners were not willing to do what he wanted and continued asking him to concede, to agree with the Vichy government, but he was adamantly against this. He always fought for a free France. In the end, he got it. Maybe it will not be president Zelensky who will see the final end of the war, because it will take more time. But as I said, you have to believe in what you're fighting for.

How much is more time? Zelensky said recently that the war's end could be very far away and Trump reacted with outrage. Is the end really that far off?
But two days later Zelensky said that he believes the war could end very soon. Pay less attention to all these statements coming from Washington and Kiev, because it's just a game of words, a game of narratives to engage Trump in a conversation. That’s what it's all about. No one knows when the war will end, that is the truth.

In the end, it's all about the strength of the nation and its soldiers. How much strength does Ukraine have left?
Enough. Imagine another country that would be able to fight for three years in conditions like those Ukraine faces and against an enemy like Russia. For three years Ukraine has been fighting. For three years I've been hearing the West speaking of its war-fatigue. For three years we have been hearing about the war of attrition that will exhaust Ukraine. For three years we have been hearing that Ukraine is exhausted. All this keeps happening and yet Ukraine keeps fighting. I'm not saying that Ukraine is not tired or that the West is not tired. Everyone is tired. But we will keep fighting, because we know what is at stake.