Donald-style negotiations

When I started this blog, I clearly defined for myself what it would be about. In fact, I openly stated it on all its pages: thoughts on business, education, and pastime. That means you will not find analytical posts here related to politics or war. Not because these topics are uninteresting or, even more so, unimportant to me. On the contrary, I believe that reflections on these matters should come from those who have the relevant expertise or have witnessed certain events firsthand.

But what should I do when the most pressing political issue in recent weeks has become… negotiations? A subject I am deeply interested in, that I research, and for which I develop educational programs. I didn’t have to think long about how to respond—I decided to write this post. And now, it’s your choice whether to read it or not. Simple as that.

Today, we are witnessing an extremely dynamic negotiation landscape, so complex that even with a navigator, one could get lost. Countries are rapidly repositioning themselves, switching stances. In the UN Security Council, nations like the U.S. and russia are voting in the same way, supporting each other… It’s dizzying. Even more absurd, while accusing Ukraine of becoming a “raw material appendage of the U.S.,” russia itself declares, “No, we will be the raw material appendage of the U.S., we have rare earth metals too…” Complete nonsense. Even my father, a man who spends a lot of time following the news, has cut down on it due to the transformation of the information flow into a thick fog. So, to make it easier, I have broken down my thoughts into a few key subtopics.

Why the U.S. has begun actively engaging with russia

From this issue, everyone has already shared their opinions, so I will not repeat the usual arguments about pulling russia away from China, poking the Global South and BRICS, playing realpolitik, or preparing for Trump’s anticipated isolationism. These factors matter, but in my opinion, they are not the key.

Regarding the russia-Ukraine war, the current administration is dealing with an almost fully cemented situation (with a decent amount of reinforcement inside). One pseudo-country has written regions it does not even control into its constitution, our country has a decree prohibiting negotiations, and the communication strategies of both sides shape public opinion in such a way that not only is there no ZOPA (zone of possible agreement), but even the possibility of one appearing on the horizon is nowhere in sight. We won’t go into why this has happened (greetings to the previous administration for its "decisiveness and leadership"), but simple talk-and-agree methods won’t work here. The situation needs to be shaken up. That is precisely what Trump is doing. That’s why we don’t see real decisions being made, but we do see a lot of noise. This is a destabilization tactic, and contradictory comments from the same person within a single day are not foolishness, my friends. This is one of the ways to shake up that cemented block. What targets does Trump reach with that approach:

• provocation. Movement begins across all continents. Europe starts mobilizing, Xi calls putin, everyone starts commenting. For a stagnant situation, this is good. Why? Because in such chaos, someone is bound to make a mistake, and Trump can take advantage of that.

• show me what you've got. This way, he can find out who is really in deep trouble and who still has some resilience. I emphasize that russia has already eagerly thrown itself at the U.S.… Our negotiators, whatever one may think of them, in my view, are conducting themselves with more dignity.

• awakening of third forces. Essentially, this is about reviving Europe. It may seem that Trump doesn’t care about what happens on another continent, but I don’t think that’s the case. For a long time, Europe has not demonstrated independence in foreign policy (and certainly not in military affairs), which limits its potential as a strategic partner in major confrontations. It’s like bringing your son into a company and appointing him to a high position. The situation looks good—your son is highly dependent on you and will do as you say (or at least listen attentively). However, everyone in the company will understand this, making it hard for you to rely on him in disputes as an independent figure.

• unsettling China. No further explanation needed. Trump is simply showing how quickly Russia slams on the emergency brake and rushes toward a backyard barbecue.

Trump’s actions, in my opinion—after experiencing the same emotional swings—are entirely logical. Not because he is an irrational person, but because the situation demands unconventional steps. What do we and our negotiators need to do? Stay calm, maintain dignity, take strategic pauses whenever possible, and stick to our adjusted yet firm position. And, of course, work on BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement).

Negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine

To be honest, I don’t entirely understand why our President continues using this message. No, the message itself is correct, meaning the idea behind it is correct. But the wording is flawed.

All countries discuss all other countries without those countries' participation. This is normal.

By pushing the message “negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine are unacceptable,” we corner ourselves into a situation where we can be asked, “So what? What happens if Austria and Canada discuss Ukraine?” The answer? Nothing, friends. Because every country discusses China, Israel, and the U.S.… and sometimes even makes agreements. The difference is that China, Israel, and the U.S. don’t care. They won’t implement these agreements and might not even acknowledge them.

The fact that the U.S. went to talk to the tribes west of the Ural Mountains means nothing. That’s why the outrage over not being invited to negotiations or being excluded from discussions seems odd.

Political (not crisis—our crisis communication is solid) messaging has never been a strong suit of Ukraine’s international policy. We get offended when we’re not invited to meetings with uncivilized creatures, even though we previously refused to attend; we repeat “negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine” a hundred times, despite everyone violating this principle; and at the same time, we completely ignore serious attacks on the legitimacy of our key leaders and the country’s role in the war. There are at least three possible responses Ukraine could have given to the U.S.-Russia meeting that would have strengthened our position without offending allies:

• The U.S. is acting as the world’s leader, taking personal responsibility for calming the aggressor. We are confident that once he is on a leash, cooperation will be easier. We are grateful to the U.S. for this.

• Our allies have the right to meet and speak with whomever they deem necessary. Considering how desperately Russia begged for this, Mr. Trump could hardly deny them this act of mercy.

• No, we never planned to participate in this meeting. It is more of a disciplinary session, and therefore it is appropriate to conduct it privately. This is, at the very least, noble on the part of the U.S.

And such responses exist for every situation. It is strange that advisors do not prepare these for our diplomats and the President.

Rare Earth Metals (REM) and BATNA

Finally, a hot topic in public discussion: Should we give away our mineral resources? At what price? When? In which territories? To answer this more easily, we should first ask ourselves: Can Ukraine as a state, or Ukrainian businesses, independently develop this industry? I’m currently reading Chip War by Chris Miller, and let’s be honest, we are about 40 years late in launching an industry for extraction, processing, and high-tech manufacturing. Even putin recently announced a program to develop russia’s REM sector (good luck with that). No, we do not have the time, resources, or capacity to independently develop this industry, and the key market players will actively resist our entry. So, collaboration is the only logical path forward, and there’s no point in debating it.

Here comes the most interesting part. The key players—both regions and countries—in the industry are the United States, China, Malaysia, Japan, Australia, Europe, and South Korea. China, notably, controls about 90% of rare earth metals (REM) processing, which is why the U.S. seeks to secure its own supply sources. A logical question arises: Have we discussed investment or joint REM extraction with anyone besides the U.S.? As I write this, I see fresh news that Europe is also offering Ukraine a deal in this sector. That’s already a positive development. Some might argue that since the U.S. is expected to provide security guarantees, negotiations should be exclusive to them. However, based on recent statements, our partners are increasingly avoiding the issue of security guarantees. In that case, signing such an agreement with Japan—even if hypothetically for “three tanks”—might already be more advantageous than with the U.S. today. Of course, I’m joking, but overall, that’s how the situation looks.

We need to engage with all key players on two critical issues: security/war and rare earth metals (REM). Notably, in UN Security Council resolutions related to Ukraine, China did not vote against Ukraine, as the U.S. did, but abstained. This suggests that negotiations with China, which is dissatisfied with the growing U.S.-russia rapprochement, could serve as a useful leverage point and a way to strengthen Ukraine’s position in the shifting global landscape. I fully support the initiative to establish European armed forces as either a supplement or an alternative to NATO. It is evident that Ukraine should not remain on the sidelines of these processes. However, as I emphasized earlier, we must stand firm in our positions. This is exactly what improving BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) is about—ensuring that Ukraine is never in a position where it has no options. By doing so, we can enter negotiations with greater confidence, defend our stance more assertively, and significantly limit unnecessary concessions.

In conclusion, I will say that we are still in a strong global position in terms of support; regardless of what is being said, the U.S. (read: Trump) does not want to lose its confrontation with russia in a scenario similar to Afghanistan; based on open sources, we have approximately six months to replace U.S. support with European alternatives; and our adversary’s situation is, to put it mildly, not any better—if not worse.

I want to clarify right away that I am simply sitting here, writing my thoughts, and I am not on the front lines. Therefore, I would never beat my chest advocating for war until the 1991 borders. The lives of every defender, every soldier, and every civilian are the most important. We must remain clear-headed in our aspirations and steadfast in our actions.