What’s going on in US–Ukraine relations: interview with the head of the American Studies Institute

At the start of his presidency, the newly elected President Trump put all foreign aid on hold for 90 days. Later, after a review, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that 83% of contracts would not be reinstated. What's the situation now? Should Ukraine expect any aid to return?

The most responsible answer I could give is that I don't know. We've never seen a precedent like this, such an overhaul of US foreign aid funding.

Of course, every administration brings its own approach to international assistance, and I say this as a researcher of international aid issues and US foreign aid policies, in particular. 

For example, under President Carter, aid efforts focused more on Latin America. Reagan's administration prioritized democratic states and even established the National Endowment for Democracy in 1984. There are more examples.

So, on one hand, it's natural for a new administration to reassess priorities and show that it has a better plan for spending American taxpayers' money.

That being said, restructuring the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is no simple task. I don't see that as a significant shift if USAID's responsibilities are transferred to the State Department. The head of USAID is appointed by the president, just as the Secretary of State is. It's still part of the president's executive power structure.

To me, this move is a radical way to demonstrate to the American public that the administration can cut government spending. And unfortunately, foreign aid is the easiest place to make those cuts.

Numerous studies show that Americans believe their country spends 20–30% of its GDP on foreign aid. In reality, it has historically been just 2%, and now, if I'm correct, it's closer to 1%. The perception and the reality are worlds apart.

At the same time, studies also indicate that US foreign aid hasn't been a losing deal for America. Realism always dominates when it comes to international assistance. Realism also puts the country giving the aid into the center of attention. The US foreign aid has played this role and has often benefited America.

That's why, in the long run, I believe more aid projects will be restored. Or we may see a shift where American institutions remain involved but no longer as primary donors. This would be an easier strategy to explain to voters.

What was the real reason behind this decision?

I believe it was a move designed for a domestic audience. American voters wildly praise this kind of decision. We have to understand that Americans are intensely used to monitoring where their tax dollars go. This goes for accountability in government spending, both domestically and abroad.

And it's not just about Ukraine — this is a much broader debate. The new administration was, to some extent, forced to take this step. They are also hostages of their promises to cut government spending by $2 trillion. That's not something you can just do overnight.

I don't think the administration believes these aid programs were against American interests or that they might resist Trump's policies. This is more about Trump's personal motives that pushed him to the decision, especially the promise to reduce government spending.

The cuts also applied to media outlets like Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. Is this purely about cutting costs, or is there something else at play?

It's mainly about the money. I wouldn't look for any deeper agenda or hidden motives here. I'd say it's the funding issue and the question of who these media outlets are for if they don't serve a domestic American audience. In my view, these are the main reasons behind these cuts.

Did Americans react positively to these decisions?

For the most part, I think Americans, especially Trump's supporters, barely noticed. This decision wasn't a big topic of discussion. It didn't pop up on their phone screens, and it wasn't a major story on TV.

I should point out that American society is still very television-driven. Americans, mainly middle-aged and older people, watch TV much more than Ukrainians. And I don't just mean internet-based television—they still watch traditional TV.

So, we must understand that the American media landscape differs entirely from Ukraine's. Local news stations and regional affiliates of major media networks hold a lot of trust. Because of this, most Americans don't grasp the role of Radio Free Europe or Voice of America, so these cuts barely registered for them.

Photo: AP

Aside from the controversial funding cuts, Trump has taken surprising steps regarding Russia. He's essentially ended its diplomatic isolation, which had been in place since the full-scale invasion began, and seems to be accommodating Russia. Why?

I want to be clear — I'm not justifying the Trump administration's decisions. My job is to explain them. And from an American perspective, I don't see "accommodating." In my view, this administration is focused on achieving a ceasefire.

To that end, Americans are willing to openly state that they're ready to talk to the Russians through phone calls or formal diplomatic meetings. But I don't see any major "rollback" in US policy or a fundamental shift in their actual decisions. I'm talking about actions, not rhetoric.

Has the US signed any agreements with Russia to divide Ukraine? Has it revoked the Pompeo Declaration and recognized Crimea as Russian territory? No. So, I don't see any indicators that Trump's administration is, to put it bluntly, leaving Ukraine high and dry.

However, what raises questions is how these decisions have been explained. The new administration hasn't communicated with the American public about its approach.

People aren't upset that Trump is talking to Putin — they're upset that there's no clear explanation. Trump is doing this to bring Russia to the negotiating table. Yes, Ukrainians are outraged by this approach. But what exactly did they expect Trump to do to influence Putin?

The American strategy is risky. The US is essentially waiting for Putin to agree to negotiations under mounting pressure.

Why did Trump's office choose negotiation over pressure?

It seems that Trump personally believes that pressure should only be used as a last resort when every other option has failed.

He views international relations through the lens of business deals. He thinks in terms of who can be reconciled, who can be brought together, who's feuding with whom, and so on. He's obsessed with this way of thinking.

And I strongly suspect that someone close to Trump is carefully feeding him Russia's perspective.

The situation that unfolded in the Oval Office on February 28 didn't come out of nowhere. Someone planted the idea in Trump's mind that Ukraine is stalling on peace negotiations and delaying a ceasefire by constantly talking about security guarantees.

Photo: Reuters

What is the current state of US–Ukraine relations after the Oval Office conflict?

We see the United States as an ally. But does the US see us the same way? I have my doubts. Even though President Biden and President Zelensky signed a bilateral security agreement last year, the US primarily considers NATO member states, countries with mutual security commitments, or nations designated as major non-NATO partners as its allies.

So, where do relations stand right now? If we measured them in terms of speed, I'd say we're currently at third gear out of five. At the end of February, we came dangerously close to reaching the lowest level. Still, thanks to successful negotiations between the Ukrainian delegation and US officials in Saudi Arabia, we can now say relations are back on track.

Unfortunately, when it comes to ending the war, the Trump administration isn't focused on holding Russia accountable for its aggression or restoring peace and justice in Europe and the world. Instead, Trump's primary concern is making sure the US doesn't have to spend as much on supporting Ukraine during his presidency.

Could anything have been done differently to prevent relations from reaching such a low point?

I don't think there was much we could have done at this stage. However, I do believe the Trump administration expected Ukraine to take a more proactive approach, particularly regarding security guarantees.

Both sides were waiting for the other to propose a plan. The result? We told the Americans, "Yes, we support a ceasefire and an end to this war, but we need to ensure it never happens again." Their response was essentially, "That's just talk. You're stalling." This disconnect built up over time, eventually leading to the explosive confrontation in the Oval Office.

What should we expect next in US–Ukraine relations?

First, we need to acknowledge a fundamental reality that hasn't changed even with the full-scale war. If anything, it has become even more pronounced. Fortunately or unfortunately, American politicians know very well what realism in international relations is.

The US sees itself as the world's dominant power, metaphorically speaking, holding 80 units of global strength. Below it, other major players like China and Russia have 40 units and 30 units, respectively. These numbers are debatable, but this is the general American perspective.

Individually, neither Russia nor China poses an existential threat to the US. But together? That's a serious challenge. I'm not saying China isn't already a major concern or that Russia isn't a problem, but from a strategic standpoint, Washington's top priority is to prevent them from forming a real military alliance.

That's why the US is doing everything possible to drive a wedge between Russia and China. From this perspective, what Russia does is, unfortunately, not America's primary concern. The top priority is ending the war while making sure that Russia and China don't deepen their military cooperation.

This strategic mindset will not change regardless of whether Trump speaks with Putin or avoids him. It's the guiding principle for American decision-makers, shaping how they approach negotiations with Russia about ending the war.

What to expect? I think the Trump administration will attempt to organize a three-way summit between Putin, Zelensky, and the US. The model for these negotiations might resemble the grain deal, in which Turkey and the UN acted as intermediaries between Ukraine and Russia.

↓Read more

US aid to Ukraine: What is the most crucial for Ukraine's defense?

US halts military aid to Ukraine: Key details and what comes next