Ukrainian lawmaker warns Trump "cannot trade with Putin," because he’s the "aggressor" who started brutal war. A prominent Ukrainian lawmaker issued a stark warning on Wednesday, emphasizing that any peace efforts concerning the ongoing conflict with Russia must not be approached as a mere business transaction, especially by figures like former President Donald Trump. Lisa Yasko, a member of Ukraine’s parliament representing the same political party as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, articulated this crucial point to CBS News, stating unequivocally that Trump "cannot trade with Putin" given the Russian leader’s undeniable role as the "aggressor" who initiated and continues to fuel a brutal war, now nearing its four-year mark. This admonition comes at a pivotal time, following a series of high-level, yet ultimately fruitless, discussions in Moscow between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, which also reportedly included Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law. These diplomatic overtures, aimed at finding a breakthrough in the protracted conflict, concluded without any tangible progress, a stagnation Yasko largely attributed to what she perceives as Putin’s disingenuous interest in achieving a genuine and lasting peace.
Yasko’s insights into Putin’s motivations during these talks were particularly pointed. She observed, "[Putin] was smiling so much at this meeting with Witkoff, but absolutely this is not about the peace itself." According to her analysis, Putin’s primary objective in engaging with American envoys is not to earnestly seek an end to hostilities but rather to bolster his own international standing and project an image of geopolitical relevance. "He’s interested in showing that he’s geopolitically active… how cool you are, how Americans are treating you and that you are not a war criminal," Yasko elaborated, suggesting a strategic manipulation of diplomatic encounters for internal and external propaganda purposes, rather than a sincere commitment to de-escalation.
The Ukrainian lawmaker further stressed the fundamental incompatibility of a transactional approach, often associated with Mr. Trump’s business background, with the complex and morally charged realities of the war. "President Trump can be very transactional, in a good way also," Yasko conceded, acknowledging his negotiation style. However, she quickly added a critical caveat: "But you cannot make peace with only economic deals. You cannot go that far as pleasing an aggressor. I believe there are certain lines." This highlights a core belief within Ukraine and among many of its allies that concessions to an aggressor, particularly those involving territorial integrity, not only fail to resolve the underlying conflict but also risk legitimizing illegal actions and emboldening further expansionism. The devastating human cost of the conflict, marked by countless civilian casualties, widespread destruction, and a massive refugee crisis, underscores the moral imperative that, for Ukraine, transcends mere economic calculus.
The Tuesday meeting in the Russian capital, which spanned five hours and involved a concerted push by the White House to broker an agreement based on a Trump administration proposal, served as a stark illustration of these divergent perspectives. The initial proposal, floated weeks prior as a comprehensive 28-point plan, had sparked considerable controversy. It reportedly included calls for Kyiv to cede occupied territory to Russia, a provision that was met with firm rejection from Ukraine and many of its European partners. This particular aspect of the plan was deemed unacceptable, as it would effectively reward Russia for its illegal invasion and annexation efforts, thereby undermining international law and the principle of national sovereignty. Consequently, the draft proposal had to be amended during subsequent discussions with Ukrainian and European officials, reflecting the profound disagreement over the terms of a potential peace.
Following the extensive talks, Yuri Ushakov, a senior adviser to Putin, offered a guarded assessment, describing the conversation as "rather useful, constructive, rather substantive." However, his subsequent remark quickly tempered any sense of optimism: "but that we are no closer to resolving the crisis in Ukraine, and there is much work to be done." This statement, while seemingly diplomatic, echoed Yasko’s skepticism about Putin’s true intentions. When pressed by CBS News on whether she believed Putin was merely stalling for time through these ongoing meetings, Yasko’s response was unambiguous, painting a picture of a Russian leader driven by grander, more disruptive ambitions than genuine peace.
"Putin is trying to have his new world order by playing a central part in the [global] economy with China and the U.S. and with other parts of the world," Yasko asserted. This vision, she argued, positions Russia not as a partner in a stable international system, but as a disruptive force seeking to reshape global power dynamics to its own advantage. From Ukraine’s perspective, any proposal that offers "benefits for [the] Russian economy" in exchange for peace is not only deeply misguided but "insanity for all of us here in Ukraine," given the immense suffering inflicted by Russia’s aggression. The very notion of economic incentives for an unprovoked war is seen as a profound betrayal of justice and an affront to the sacrifices made by the Ukrainian people.
Adding another layer of complexity to the diplomatic landscape, Putin, in remarks made before the Moscow talks on Tuesday, pointedly accused America’s European allies of obstructing Mr. Trump’s peace initiatives. While claiming he was not seeking a conflict with Europe, he issued a chilling declaration that Russia was "ready for war." This rhetoric, blending accusations against allies with an open declaration of military readiness, further solidified the perception that Russia’s engagement in peace talks is often a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine pursuit of resolution. It suggests a strategic intent to sow discord among Western allies while simultaneously projecting an image of strength and unwavering resolve.
In light of these dynamics, Yasko extended a heartfelt plea to Mr. Trump, urging him to personally witness the devastating impact of Russia’s full-scale invasion on Ukraine and its populace. "He should come here first," she implored CBS News. "He should see what happened in Ukraine. He should see the faces, the eyes of people." This invitation, echoing similar appeals repeatedly made by President Zelenskyy to his American counterpart, underscores the belief that firsthand experience is essential to grasp the profound human tragedy and the intricate geopolitical stakes involved. Such a visit, Yasko suggested, could provide Mr. Trump with a crucial perspective that transcends policy papers and diplomatic communiqués, potentially altering his approach to brokering peace. She reiterated her assessment of the initial peace deal proposed by the Trump administration as "insulting" to Ukraine, given its implications for territorial concessions and national dignity.
Beyond Ukraine, the concerns voiced by Yasko resonate deeply among many European leaders. There is a palpable apprehension that acceding to Russia’s demands in exchange for a ceasefire would establish a perilous precedent, effectively normalizing and rewarding a unilateral landgrab. Such a move, they fear, would not only undermine the fundamental principles of international law but also embolden Russia to escalate threats and aggression against other sovereign nations. Evidence supporting these fears is already mounting, with America’s Western European NATO allies reporting numerous instances of Russia breaching their airspace with drone flights around critical airports and military bases, as well as incursions by fighter jets. Furthermore, allegations of a widespread Russian sabotage campaign targeting key infrastructure across Europe have added to the anxieties, painting a picture of an increasingly aggressive and unpredictable Russia.
Amidst these heightened tensions, a notable dynamic has emerged: European leaders appear to have been largely sidelined as the White House engages in direct negotiations with Russia and Ukraine. This approach, while perhaps intended to streamline the peace process, raises questions about allied unity and the coherence of the Western response to Russian aggression. For many in Europe, a coordinated, multilateral approach is crucial to ensure that any peace deal is not only sustainable but also upholds the values and security interests of the entire transatlantic alliance. Yasko’s warning, therefore, serves as a critical reminder that while the pursuit of peace is paramount, it must be predicated on a clear understanding of the aggressor’s true intentions and a steadfast commitment to justice and international norms, rather than a transactional exchange that risks validating brutality.
