�鶹��ý

Denys Pilash is a member of the Ukrainian democratic socialist organisation Sotsialnyi Rukh (Social Movement). �鶹��ý’s Federico Fuentes spoke to Pilash about the fallout in Ukraine from the meeting between United States President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as Trump’s proposed peace and rare earth mineral deals for Ukraine.

* * *

What was the reaction inside Ukraine to the recent meeting between Trump and Zelensky?

The reaction was predictably one of outrage. The consensus is that Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance tried to humiliate not just Zelensky but Ukraine and its people. They showed zero respect for Ukraine and cynically blamed the victim. They proved themselves to be bullies taking the side of another bully waging war on Ukraine.

From what I have heard from people, including in the army, they are angry at the current US administration. They feel Ukraine is being blackmailed into a very disadvantageous “deal”, which will hand over our resources in return for nothing: no security guarantees, no gains, nothing. The deal is simply one where Ukraine is made to pay for everything, not the aggressor.

Perhaps the one optimistic thing to come out of this is that people are losing their illusions not just in Trump, but in his brand of hard-right conservative politics.

Prior to Trump taking office, when he was making preposterous claims about ending the war in 24 hours, there was a lot of hope for Trump in Ukraine. Now almost everyone hates Trump.

And they see a direct link between Trump’s and Putin’s hard right politics. They see Trump and Putin as ultimately the same: they are two rulers of two great powers who want to impose the rule of force on the world, where the strongest dictate the terms.

Where does Trump’s proposed deal leave not just Ukraine but the Global South?

The first thing to say regarding the rare earth minerals deal is that we still do not know what exactly is in it. In fact, we do not even know if there is a finalised deal.

Second, even if they proceed with the deal, it is currently based on estimates from explorations carried out in Soviet times. So, there is no guarantee Ukraine has enough rare earth minerals to fulfill the supposed US$500 billion deal.

 What happens if they find out there are not enough minerals or that extraction will be too expensive? The deal seems to imply that Ukraine would have to compensate the US by handing over other resources, and other sectors of its economy, especially infrastructure.

Clearly, this deal is about imposing economic colonialism. It can only entrench Ukraine’s role as a dependent and exploited country, and sets a dangerous precedent for the Global South.

What about the proposed Russia-US peace talks? What is their significance?

If this deal between Moscow and Washington to partition Ukraine over the heads of Ukrainians goes ahead it should serve as an important lesson to the people of the world, especially in the Global South.

The situation is very clear. Ukraine, as a periphery country, has been treated badly by neighbouring Russian imperialism. On top of that, it is now being sold out by US imperialism. These two imperialisms are colluding on a shady deal at Ukraine’s expense.

The scenario could not be clearer. It is as if a very unsubtle Marxist screenwriter wrote the script: you have an administration of billionaires, co-run by a clownish president and the richest person in the world, acting in a brazen and openly imperialist manner, and clearly stating that they are working with Putin’s Russia.

Of course, we on the political left had no illusions in the US. Ukrainians understood, just like the Kurds in Syria, that you need to use any opportunities to obtain the support needed to withstand an aggressor.

But we also criticised our ruling class who failed to understand that this was not a dialogue of equals, and that great powers can turn on you at any time if it suits their interests.

This new situation, however, leaves no excuses for those who think Putin’s Russia represents some kind of counterbalance to Western and US imperialism.

The campist way of thinking [which sees the world as divided into a pro-US imperialism camp and an anti-US imperialism camp] believes imperialisms will remain in permanent opposition and that the enemy of my enemy is somehow my friend. This has clearly been shown not to work.

Our current situation should also dispel the simplistic argument that this was all just a proxy war. If that is the case, on whose behalf is Ukraine now waging a proxy war?

What would Ukrainians like to see come out of any negotiations?

Russian propaganda has managed to create this idea that Ukrainians are the warmongers and that Russia is on the side of peace, despite the fact it unleashed the biggest invasion in Europe since Adolf Hitler. They have managed to monopolise terms such as “negotiations”, “peace talks”, “peace deals”.

But if you listen to what Russian officials say they have clearly said Russia will not only not hand back the lands it has occupied, but has as a prerequisite for peace talks that Ukraine cede even more territory.

The truth is no one in the world wants peace in Ukraine more than Ukrainians. Most people are naturally tired of the war. But that does not mean they want to capitulate to Russia and just hand over our land and people.

They understand that if Ukraine is partitioned, the millions who are either in the occupied territories or have had to flee will have nowhere to return. They know that an outcome that hugely rewards the aggressor will only strengthen Putin’s authoritarian regime and mean even more repression, especially in the occupied territories.

So, Ukrainians have two things in mind when thinking about any deal: the fate of the people in the occupied territories and how to prevent Russia from restarting the war.

Within this, there are possible areas for agreements. For example, the Ukrainian government has made it clear it will not recognise Russia’s illegal annexations, as this would set a dangerous precedent for Ukraine and the world.

But it has said it could be willing to accept a temporary arrangement whereby, following a ceasefire, Ukraine retains at least some of the currently-occupied territories and negotiations are held regarding the fate of the rest.

Another important condition the Ukrainian government has raised is security guarantees. What guarantees will there be to ensure Russia does not use any ceasefire to simply accumulate more resources, human power and shells, and then restart the war?

Trump says this will not happen because unlike previous “weak” US presidents, Putin respects him personally because he is “strong”. But Russia never stopped its hybrid war against Ukraine during Trump’s first administration. Trump’s words mean nothing.

Increasingly more people (though still a minority) understand there is no prospect of NATO membership — let’s leave aside here all the implications of this and everything we as leftists know that is wrong with NATO.

But some sort of security guarantees involving important players are needed to ensure Russia does not invade again.

How can the international left best help the Ukrainian people, and Ukrainian left in particular, in these turbulent times?

The first thing I would say is that the left must not surrender the struggle in your own countries against your own ruling classes, against your own reactionary forces that are linking up with similar forces globally.

To help the Ukrainian people, the first thing to do is continue your own struggles.

The second thing is to stand on an internationalist platform that opposes all aggressors, all oppressors, all imperialists. Today that means finding ways to help the people of Ukraine, rather than supporting the plans of sycophantic dictators and ultracapitalists.

Ukraine is an important struggle for the left. Nice slogans, such as “the suffering has to end somehow”, “the war has to end somehow” are not enough to stop the suffering and war.

Achieving this requires a just and sustainable peace. But these so-called “peace” negotiations between Putin and Trump are simply about rewarding the aggressor and inviting further aggressions.

So, against the realpolitik we see on the left today, we need a renewed internationalism to confront the Trump administration, which is leading a global far-right assault on what remains of progressive forces and social gains throughout the world.

Every time Trump makes a statement demanding entire nations cease to exist and become US states, or threatens to annex parts of other countries, all you get is a very meek response from the international community. They are afraid.

But we, as the left, can not be afraid, not even in the face of the worst capitalist nightmare.

It is now or never. If we do not act now, there may be no tomorrow. We may instead all find ourselves living under the heel of extremely authoritarian, fascistic regimes seeking to reshape the world to their liking — a nice big playground for the world’s most brutal and richest people.