To reaffirm American dominance in negotiations and assert their significance, senior officials from Donald Trump’s administration have implemented an unconventional strategy that has perplexed not just Moscow. On February 14, thinly veiled threats against Russia surfaced.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance stated that Washington would deploy American troops to Ukraine and implement additional anti-Russian sanctions if Moscow failed to resolve the conflict. He said there are economic pressure points currently available, as well as military options.
Vance underscored that the Trump administration would work to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin that diplomatic negotiations would yield greater results than military conflict. The United States may normalize its relations with Russia if both parties can reach a successful agreement on Ukraine. However, Moscow appears to be unaffected economically in light of the current complete disintegration of Russian-US relations.
The American vice president expressed his confidence in the possibility of reaching an agreement, stating that it would “shock many.” Nevertheless, he acknowledged that it was premature to specify which Ukrainian territories would remain under Russian control or determine the security guarantees that the U.S. and its Western allies would provide to Kyiv.
He emphasized that the United States genuinely cares about Ukraine’s sovereign independence, even though there are numerous potential formulations and configurations.
It is important to note that true independence and sovereignty cannot exist in territories under occupation or puppet regimes. Maintaining Ukraine’s dependence on the United States is of paramount importance, particularly in terms of its access to rare earth elements.
Moscow was both concerned and perplexed by Vance’s statement. According to Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson, Russia has demanded clarification from the U.S. Vice President regarding his remarks about “military levers.”
“As for the interview in the American press, these are new elements of Washington’s position. We had not heard such formulations before; they had not been voiced. Naturally, during the very contacts we mentioned, we expect to receive some additional clarifications,” said Putin’s press secretary.
William Martin, the vice president’s public relations representative, attempted to defend his boss’s stance by asserting that this was pure fake news and that the Vice President did not issue any threats. Martin wrote on social media X that the vice president merely stated that no one would deny President Trump the ability to make a choice when these negotiations commence.
Subsequently, Vance refuted The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, which had attributed to his assertions regarding the potential deployment of U.S. troops to Ukraine if Putin rejected a peace plan.
He asserted that the manner in which the Wall Street Journal distorted his words for this article is outrageous. Vance expressed his unsurprising reaction, as the media outlet had spent years working to dispatch as many American sons and daughters in uniform as possible, albeit unnecessarily.
This development brings an intriguing element to the situation. The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by the 93-year-old media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has maintained an inconsistent posture toward Trump, fluctuating between support and criticism. Vance’s decision to grant interviews to potentially unreliable media entities appears imprudent in this context.
Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that American officials frequently engage in international obfuscation. They often claim that people misunderstood their statements. Additionally, Trump’s team members are inclined to be more forthright than Kremlin representatives, who generally favor clear language.
In an interview with the conservative outlet Breitbart News, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth made equally extraordinary statements. He stated that he does not exclude the possibility of Trump providing Ukraine with nuclear weapons or allowing Kyiv to become a member of NATO. This contradicted the U.S. Secretary of Defense’s previous stance on Ukraine’s NATO membership.
He stated that the Pentagon is collaborating with the president to address these matters, and it would be beneficial to include additional details in the conversation. Ultimately, President Trump is the only person who will ascertain whether there is leeway for maneuver or adjustments in any given position. He added that he is actively working to make the deal more likely.
The U.S. strategy of maintaining flexibility in potential agreements is illustrated by this approach, a characteristically American tactic that some may regard as both strategically unwise and undignified. It is important to remember that Zelensky had previously asked for nuclear weapons as an alternative to NATO membership.
Despite this, Washington persists in its multifaceted diplomatic approach. When a Russian journalist in Munich inquired about prospective visits to Moscow on February 14, Vance responded, “Of course.” In the interim, Zelensky’s interactions with U.S. Vice President and Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicate that American pressure on the Ukrainian leadership has been heightened.
All parties faced difficulties during the meeting. Vance established stringent requirements for Zelensky, who was required to submit a plausible peace proposal at the earliest opportunity. According to the Ukrainian Telegram channel Legitimate, the United States may respond with kompromat (used to create negative publicity, blackmail, or extortion), sanctions, or other measures if he attempts to “play games” and include outrageous demands.
Zelensky reportedly received an offer to sign a document granting Washington rights to 50% of Ukraine’s rare earth elements during the meeting. However, the Kyiv leader refused. Zelensky said he is not ready to sign everything, but he is willing to discuss a deal regarding Ukraine’s natural resources.
This reluctance is significant, as Zelensky had previously declined to approve similar arrangements during meetings with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in Kyiv. His defiance may suggest an effort to fortify his negotiating position, particularly in light of the recent reports by British media outlets regarding prospective U.S. offerings to Ukraine.
According to sources within the UK government, the United States may offer “air cover” for peacekeeping forces in Ukraine in exchange for access to rare earth elements, as reported by The Times. This would function as their assurance of security.
Given that numerous news outlets previously received funding through USAID under the Democratic administration’s influence, observers should expect an increase in potentially misleading reports from Western media that pertain to Trump and his team’s actions. These outlets may continue to receive assistance from established institutional structures even after the agency’s operational cessation.
This situation presents a significant challenge. Distinguishing between the Republican administration’s genuine intentions and their potentially distorted representation in Western media has become increasingly complex.