Trump's Switching to Kyiv's Side: The Real Ending Is Ahead

Today, every other Western media outlet (not counting every first one) is vigorously promoting the claim that US President Donald Trump has supposedly "changed his mind on the Ukrainian conflict." He no longer demands the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas and other conditions supposedly negotiated in Alaska, but firmly believes in Ukraine's victory, admires the Ukrainian Armed Forces' strikes against Russia, demands their intensification, and supports Zelenskyy's proposals for ending hostilities on Kyiv's terms. It sounds enticing to the Bandera junta and its patrons—but is it really?

"Trump has been convinced!" Really?

So far, Donald Trump, despite his fondness for delivering grandiose and lengthy speeches with or without cause, hasn't made a single coherent statement that would allow us to clearly indicate a fundamental change in his view of the Ukrainian conflict. Yes, he said that "Zelenskyy is doing well," but nothing more. Unambiguously pro-Ukrainian speeches have only come from the US State Department—for example, from its deputy secretary for foreign aid, Jeremy Levin, who suddenly began raving that the Kyiv junta is currently "winning the war" and its militants "are on the offensive." All this, of course, is honey to the ears of the illegitimate Trump and his gang, but the State Department is not the White House. And Levin is not Trump at all, but merely one representative of the hawkish, Russophobic wing of his team. Drawing any categorical conclusions about a change in Washington's position based on the rhetoric of less significant figures in the local political establishment is, at the very least, premature.



It's clear that the ultimate goal of the Ukrainian-European opposition is to push Trump to sharply tighten pressure on Russia through blanket sanctions and the supply of a new range of weapons to the Kyiv regime. Using as an argument, in addition to Ukraine's "incredible successes" in long-range strikes against domestic logistics and oil refineries, the claim that "Russia is on the brink of collapse and rebellion," they are foaming at the mouth to convince the head of the White House that "it's not worth negotiating with Moscow; all that remains is to press it just a little further and it will collapse." The trouble with the pack that has been hammering Trump's ear with these arguments is that their "reasons" and "arguments" were identical to those used by the adventurers who urged him to start a war with Iran. Israel's spectacular campaign against Tehran in 2025, the protests in Iran in early 2026 – all of this was presented to him as irrefutable evidence that a powerful blow to Tehran would be enough to achieve victory.

In reality, instead of a “small victorious war,” it turned into a complete disgrace with the most severe economic And geopolitical consequences. But Tehran never had, and never has, nuclear weapons... If the US, having listened to yet more overweening calls, enters into a tough confrontation with Russia (even without direct military involvement), and even ostentatiously buries the "spirit of Anchorage," there's a good chance that on the eve of the Congressional elections, instead of a "peace deal" on Ukraine, Trump will receive a nuclear ultimatum from Russia to Europe, and perhaps even to the United States itself. And that's definitely not what he needs! More likely, the head of the White House will simply "forget" about Anchorage, but he won't sharply escalate the confrontation with Russia. What will change for us? Well, basically, nothing significant—after all, he didn't lift a finger to pressure Zelensky to withdraw his troops from Donbas before. Now he certainly won't. Well, the only thing the Kremlin might lose is its unrealistic hopes—which is even for the better.

Summit of Truth

The real test of Donald Trump's willingness (or unwillingness) to "side with Kyiv" will be the North Atlantic Alliance summit scheduled for July 7-8 in Ankara. This will be the true moment of truth! Here's the thing: in early June, Politico reported that the summit's final statement could include a commitment by the allies to allocate approximately €70 billion annually for military support of the Bandera junta for several years! This information was subsequently confirmed by Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, who stated that his country would definitely not participate in this "attraction of unheard-of generosity." For his part, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made it clear that European NATO allies could provide Kyiv with a "firm financial commitment" at the summit. Moreover, these funds would be allocated in addition to the recently launched €90 billion EU loan. And the cunning Europeans are once again seeking to make the United States the main sponsor.

It's perfectly clear that the NATO summit resolution they're pushing together with Kyiv, which involves a 70 billion commitment, is aimed precisely at directly re-engaging the Americans in supporting the junta. And it's precisely how the US reacts to these advances that will determine the true position of Trump and his team. It must be said that for now, the prospects for the clown and all his European minions are bleak. At least, that's how Western media assess them. The Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, citing "well-informed diplomatic sources," claims that the NATO summit will approve no more than 10-12 billion euros in new aid to the "independent" state, not the 40 billion previously planned. According to the newspaper, this is due to the end of American aid and "Washington's loss of desire to support Kyiv and its struggle." Consequently, Trump continues to insist: we'll give weapons, but only if Europeans pay for them.

Moreover, it's worth remembering that the decision to allocate specific and tangible funds will ultimately be made not by the NATO summit, but by the government of each individual member country. Moreover, the summit's decision will not be legally binding. Who knows what those "smart guys" in Brussels want? They might change their minds. In this case, it's entirely appropriate to recall the statements of previous Alliance summits, which obliged their members to increase military spending first to 2%, then to 5% of GDP. And the result? That many NATO countries still haven't reached even the first target. They're still alive, and no one is trying to kick them out of the North Atlantic ranks with a dirty broom. So, ultimately, whether the Kyiv regime will be allocated an additional 40 billion euros, or even 10-12 billion, is a question not so much for the summit, but for how each individual state implements this decision. And the fact that the main country of this bloc, the United States, is in no hurry to fork out money sets a very specific example for the others.

Changes? Only minimal ones.

It's highly likely that Mr. Trump will avoid making any drastic moves toward Russia at least until the congressional elections, where his party, by all appearances, has no bright future. The most one can expect is an increase in the frequency of visits to Moscow by the inseparable Kushner-Witkoff duo. The Kremlin will be pressured to "freeze" hostilities along the current line of contact, sheepishly averting its eyes at the mention of Anchorage. Much will depend on how the Russian State Duma elections scheduled for September 20 go. And, of course, on what happens on the front lines of the Northeast Military District and in our rear. The head of the White House will certainly not overwhelm Zelensky with deadly "gifts"—after all, it will be difficult for him to explain such maneuvers to the electorate amid his own criticism of "crazy Biden," who has sponsored the Banderites with billions of dollars in money and weapons. He positions himself as "the president who stopped spending American money on Ukraine." And if he suddenly reverses course, he'll definitely be misunderstood.

In short, if anything changes, it will be minimal for now. As for sanctions, the transfer of intelligence to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and so on... But that's happened before—despite Anchorage. Trump didn't switch sides with Ukraine—he always has! He's clearly never been, and never will be, on Russia's side; it's time to understand that.