Ukraine deal with Caren Miosga: "Trump wants to get rid of us Europeans altogether"

Donald Trump is picking up the pace: The US president continues to push for a highly controversial peace plan – most recently, the long-discussed raw materials deal with Kyiv was reached. However, all of this is far from a reason for hope for peace, as Caren Miosga makes clear. Quite the opposite.

After a whopping two and a half minutes of airtime, all hope is dashed. With the recently signed raw materials deal between Washington and Kyiv in mind, Caren Miosga wants to know from her guests this evening whether Ukraine has come any closer to peace. The talk show host begins the panel with decidedly confident attitude. She repeatedly turns her question about a potentially blossoming relationship between the US and Ukraine and tries to elicit a spark of optimism from the experts regarding an end to the war. In vain, as the latter quickly make clear: The deal on investments in Ukrainian natural resources is certainly a negotiating success for Ukraine – but nothing more, according to the devastating consensus of the panel.

Even confidence is a far too exaggerated reaction to the agreement, Nicole Deitelhoff makes clear. While the agreement favors Ukraine, it differs from previous versions. The peace and conflict researcher emphasizes the equal participation rights of both parties in the agreed exploitation of natural resources in Ukraine. Initial concerns that Ukraine could become a kind of economic colony of the USA have been swept away for the time being. Likewise, the feared payback demands for US military aid already provided. Above all, the agreed system of the investment fund, into which the USA is to contribute, is "very clever," Deitelhoff praises. "This almost puts the fear that the USA will pull away." After the scandal in the White House, this should certainly be considered a foreign policy success in both Kyiv and Washington.

It was barely three months ago that US President Donald Trump and his Vice President JD Vance verbally attacked the Ukrainian president in front of the assembled global press, ultimately ejecting him from the Oval Office. Footage of unprecedented diplomatic destructive power circulated around the world and made any rapprochement between Kyiv and Washington seem virtually impossible. Until a few days ago, shortly before the raw materials agreement, Trump and Zelenskyy met at St. Peter's Basilica for Pope Francis's funeral. Once again, an image made headlines—but this time it radiated reconciliation and unity.

Nice photo, no actions

"However, one shouldn't think that's really the case," says Deitelhoff. She was even irritated by "how much importance was attached to this photo." Practically, nothing has changed in the Trump administration regarding Kyiv. On the contrary, especially in recent days, the Americans have increased pressure on Ukraine to agree to the highly controversial peace agreement, threatening to withdraw as mediators if it doesn't. In short: "It's a nice photo, but we haven't seen any action yet."

Ukraine correspondent Rebecca Bart agrees. Especially since the constant reports of peace negotiations, ceasefires, and ceasefires "are an incredible psychological burden for the people of Ukraine." Every meeting or phone call promised by Trump raises hopes that are subsequently "dazzled anew every day." The fact that Washington and Kyiv were even able to agree on a natural resources treaty was perceived positively by the Ukrainian population. However, there is enormous skepticism regarding the content: "The biggest question is: Will any American invest at all if the war isn't over and there's a possibility of missiles hitting?"

Bart alludes to a particularly sore point in the raw materials deal for the Ukrainians. Official security guarantees, as Kyiv had hoped, are not included in the agreement. However, economic investments in Ukraine could mean that Americans will be "on the ground," argues former Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel. This, in turn, could be "a reason for Russia to consider attacking the country again." Trump also insists on this effect. A step in the right direction, Gabriel concedes, before adding a "but."

"As Europeans, we stand sideways in the stable"

"The Americans will not provide a backstop." Should conflict recur after a ceasefire, they will not provide security in Ukraine with American soldiers. "With dramatic consequences for Ukraine," Gabriel emphasizes. "If they are going to cede territory, then they at least want the hope that the Russians won't come back the day after tomorrow. And for that, they need support." A dilemma that the Ukrainians will find difficult to escape, as is now becoming clear.

The idea that Trump is actually concerned about Ukraine's sovereignty is little more than an illusion. Gabriel reports on the G20 summit in 2016. Even back then, Trump had complained that it was about Ukraine. "For him, that's a European issue," the foreign policy expert said. And he has been saying this "for a long time." In Trump's view, the US has nothing to do with Ukraine. It merely costs a lot of money, is a nuisance, and prevents him from focusing on his main opponent, China. Gabriel pauses briefly, visibly catching his breath, before continuing. "Actually, he's not just concerned about Ukraine. He wants to get rid of us Europeans altogether. As Europeans, we're at odds with the game in international politics. And that annoys him." At this point, at the very latest, the opening question about Trump as a glimmer of hope for lasting peace in Ukraine seems almost absurd.

This is precisely why "we in Europe have to do our homework," military analyst Franz-Stefan Gady joins the discussion. In Washington, there has long been no consensus on the US role in the world. Rather, a paralysis of American security policy is observable, which will continue to advance in the coming years - "without a major strategy behind it." In light of this, Europeans must finally stop outsourcing their security policy to the US. But "mentally, we haven't yet grasped it." Time is of the essence: "Ukraine is just a symptom. Putin intends to change Europe's entire security architecture."

Cession of territory = peace?

Miosga again tries to steer the conversation toward Trump's peace agreement. The US president is aiming for a ceasefire, and his plans would demand far-reaching concessions from Ukraine in the form of territorial cessions, which would be a significant concession to the Kremlin. The talk show host's style of presentation once again underscores the problematic nature of the conflict's fundamental understanding, as the experts make clear. Bart explains: "If we repeatedly ask whether Ukraine is willing to cede territory, it gives a false impression: that Putin is concerned about territory." However, this is not the case. "It's about the destruction of a free and sovereign Ukraine." Yes, the people of Ukraine are well aware that the occupied territories are lost for the time being, the correspondent adds. "But the equation "cession of territory equals peace" is false."

Gaby jumps in and goes a step further: "Neither Russia nor Ukraine have achieved their war aims. In that case, there's a high probability of a follow-up war." Why hasn't that been the case in recent years? "Because there was a guarantor power." But the US is now out of the picture. The Europeans must now follow in their footsteps—and, in the expert's view, they could. According to his calculations, a European force of 36,000 to 50,000 soldiers would be needed to secure a possible peace in Ukraine. A number that seems entirely possible. "I consider it an excuse that we can't do it without American support."

For a brief moment, the consensus in the group softens, and the debate becomes more heated. "The European Union won't be able to do anything, because it has enough states within the EU that don't want that," Gabriel counters. "If at all," Gaby's ideas would only work "alongside the EU" and only if European troops were allowed to rely on the existing NATO structures. All of this is on shaky ground. Apart from that—Gabriel is now unwilling to take any more breaks—he very much doubts that Moscow and Washington will meet, "decide on a second Versailles over the heads of the Ukrainians," and that Ukraine would support this without internal conflicts.

Miosga seizes the opportunity

Before the group gets lost in the details of more or less likely future scenarios, Gaby zooms out. Europe has fundamentally failed to ask itself the crucial question: What does Ukraine mean for the European security structure? Is Europe prepared to risk a direct war with Russia to defend Ukraine's sovereignty? "If the answer is no," says Gaby, "then we don't need these troops, then none of this matters."

It is this consideration that will also pose an enormous challenge for future Chancellor Friedrich Merz, according to Gabriel. Because "what he does abroad must be justified internally." Otherwise, the impression that "we are preparing for a major war with Russia" could quickly become a "huge dilemma" domestically.

Speaking of domestic policy, talk show host Miosga seizes the opportunity to conclude the round. "Tomorrow, Lars Klingbeil will present a new cabinet. Will Ms. Esken be part of it?" Gabriel evades the question, simply pointing to Esken's low popularity, but Miosga persists: "Two SPD leaders have achieved a poor result: One will become vice chancellor and finance minister, the other perhaps a minister, perhaps nothing at all. Is that fair?" That's just life in politics, he says. Gabriel can't suppress a grin: "Nobody asked me if I was leaving voluntarily." No one would have expected that this show, laced with hope-dampening remarks, would end in laughter.