Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator
U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. Trump has characterized the meeting as having achieved “great progress”.
On Friday, Trump has threatened Putin with new sanctions for failure to make peace with Ukraine. Trump has pulled in India and China into the negotiations, by imposing 25% duties on India for buying Russian oil, and has threatened China with the same.
Trump is using his position as President of the world’s superpower, to threaten other nations into compliance with the Oval Office’s demands.
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Dragana Trifković, Director General of the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade. She is geopolitical analyst and was an advisor on security and international relations in the Serbian Parliament.
1. Steven Sahiounie (SS): Former Prime Minister of Russia, Dmitri Medvedev, has made a number of provocation statements directed at U.S. President Donald Trump. What do you make of the timing of his statements?
Dragana Trifković (DT): Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation — one of the key positions in Russia’s security and defense structure — was actually responding to ultimatums issued by Donald Trump to Russia. Imposing deadlines for resolving the Ukrainian conflict is counterproductive. First and foremost, the positions of the key actors in the conflict remain completely divergent. Russia considers Zelensky an illegitimate negotiator because his presidential mandate has expired. Additionally, Russia wants to discuss the root causes of the war, which implies direct negotiations with the United States, whom it holds responsible for initiating the conflict. Ukraine has maximalist demands, seeking Russia’s withdrawal and war reparations, which are completely unrealistic. The U.S. wants a swift end to the conflict but without a clear plan or participation in negotiations. The West wants to freeze the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible because Russia holds strategic initiative on the front. Furthermore, Trump has promised his voters that he will end the war in the shortest possible time. On the other hand, Russia finds acceptable only a strategic solution that includes aligning international security frameworks. All of this greatly complicates the situation, and with sharp rhetoric between Moscow and Washington — which amounts to “public provocation” involving nuclear threats — it represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic moments between the U.S. and Russia in recent times.
2. SS: In response to Medvedev, Trump has ordered nuclear submarines in the area. In your opinion, why did Trump do that, and what is his message?
DT: I believe Trump made this move due to both internal and external considerations. First and foremost, he wants to present himself as a strong leader who does not tolerate threats directed at America. This also serves to counter critics who claim he is too lenient toward Russia. On the other hand, Trump often uses the threat of force as a negotiation tactic. The deployment of submarines may be an attempt to pressure Russia into peace talks over Ukraine — and on Trump’s terms, within a short timeframe (he mentioned 10–12 days). Personally, I think Trump understands that Russia cannot be blackmailed, but he wants to test its willingness to make concessions.
In reality, this is not a genuine political offer from the U.S. side, but rather a demonstration of power, which has characterized American foreign policy for decades. Still, moving nuclear submarines closer to Russia’s borders is a risky move that signals readiness for direct armed conflict. Such rhetoric and military threats increase the risk of miscalculation and a potential large-scale war.
In response to the deployment of two nuclear submarines near Russia’s borders, Medvedev reminded Trump of the “Dead Hand,” the Soviet-era automatic nuclear retaliation system. He described Trump’s reaction as nervous, adding that it shows Russia is on the right path. Peskov, as Kremlin spokesperson, later called for caution in nuclear statements, attempting to de-escalate tensions.
3. SS: In the past, Trump and Putin were seen to be in a working relationship. But, the relationship has soured, and now gives an impression of the old days of Soviet-U.S. animosity. In your view, can the relationship be saved, and what would it take?
DT: I believe the situation between the White House and the Kremlin has escalated significantly, surpassing even Cold War-era rhetoric. No American president has ever directly threatened the Soviet Union. Donald Trump has a different approach compared to Biden, who avoided engaging in dialogue with Russia. However, the fact that contacts have been renewed does not mean the relationship has improved — quite the opposite.
The U.S. continues to follow a foreign policy strategy based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine. As long as this remains the case, there is little chance for diplomatic talks between the U.S. and other major powers (Russia, China). Instead, Washington will continue to impose ultimatums through political, military, economic, and psychological pressure. If this path continues, it could lead to global destabilization and an increased risk of nuclear escalation.
On the other hand, if there is political will in Washington and a sense of global responsibility, de-escalation is possible — which would mean accepting the reality of a multipolar world. The essence of the matter is that the U.S. can no longer act unilaterally without consequences. The sooner Washington accepts this reality, the sooner tensions will ease and diplomacy can resume. Russia is ready and open to dialogue, but only with respect for its national and state interests.
4. SS: The situation in Ukraine is dire. More and more residential apartment blocks have come under attack, with deaths and injuries. Trump keep complaining to the media about the loss of life, and the need to end the war. In your opinion, can a negotiated settlement be achieved?
DT: There are many questions surrounding media coverage, which has been biased and failed to report on the war in Donbas from 2014 to 2022, including civilian casualties. But setting that aside, the war truly needs to end. I’ll build on the previous answer: a peace agreement is possible if discussions focus on addressing the root causes of the conflict — which is what Russia is proposing.
This would mean stopping the use of Ukraine as a platform for confrontation with Russia, including the spread of Russophobia, bans on the Russian language and culture, and restrictions on the Orthodox faith. The conditions would also include Ukraine’s demilitarization and withdrawal from NATO membership aspirations.
However, it’s important to understand that the causes of the conflict involve a broader geopolitical context, which requires reaching a strategic agreement that acknowledges the new global balance of power. That path could lead to a long-term solution.
A key factor in understanding the complexity of this geopolitical conflict is that negotiations with Russia from a position of force will not yield results. Therefore, a peace solution must include a strategic agreement between Russia and the United States. Otherwise, the geopolitical conflict risks expanding to other regions or escalating into a large-scale war.
5. SS: Recently, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy got a law passed in parliament by his party’s members. The citizens took to the streets to protest the law, and Zelenskyy backed down to public pressure. Much has been written about the high levels of corruption in Ukraine, both before Zelensky, and after. In your view, how high does the corruption today go?
DT: Corruption in Ukraine remains very high, especially in the judiciary, public procurement, and defense sectors. Zelensky’s motivation for passing such a law was to protect high-ranking Ukrainian officials by establishing political control over anti-corruption oversight. It is particularly important for the ruling structure in Kyiv to prevent investigations into senior officials related to military procurement. A significant portion of the financial aid Ukraine receives from Western countries is diverted into private funds through corrupt channels.
Just days after Zelensky was forced to abandon the law due to public and external pressure, several high-ranking officials were arrested. According to anti-corruption institutions, this group had misappropriated budget funds allocated for defense.
Corruption is a deeply rooted issue in Ukraine, generated by the political elite since the country’s founding in 1991. It is essential to implement a law on asset origin and to systematically investigate corruption cases. However, this leads to another challenge — the enforcement of laws in practice, which is just as difficult as fighting corruption itself.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-rime award-winning journalist.
