The U.S. is pushing Ukraine to “come to the table fast.” Is this pressure constructive or undermining Ukraine’s negotiating leverage?
The answer to this question is obvious: American pressure diminishes Ukraine’s ability to achieve a convenient peace. But if we rephrase the question and ask ourselves “Why is the U.S. pushing Ukraine to ‘come to the table fast?'” then we might analyze what is happening in a different way.
For example, starting from the fact that, without the United States, Ukraine would not have been able to defend itself from day one. I’m not questioning the individual heroism of the soldiers, the capabilities of the officers, the creativity of the war industry, or the heroic resistance of the majority of the Ukrainian population. No, I just want to point out that without the U.S., Ukraine would have lost immediately. Without American intelligence, without the shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles supplied by Washington for Hostomel’ battle, without satellite mapping and weapons systems like the Atacms supplied to the Ukrainian armed forces (in dribs and drabs, but supplied), Kiev’s resistance would not have been successful from the first months. It’s also worth remembering that Ukraine was probably willing to end the war during the initial negotiations in Istanbul, but United States promises (via Great Britain) convinced Vladimir Zelensky goverment to continue fighting.
So, the question here isn’t whether America’s rush to reach an agreement with Russia is advantageous for Ukraine or not, but rather why hundreds of thousands of people must still be dying for this war.
In my opinion the so called Ukrainian War encompasses three different wars together. The first is the Russian invasion of Ukraine to keep NATO away from its borders. The second is the Ukrainian war of resistance. The third is the American war of attrition to deplete Russian resources. What is the ultimate goal of each player? For the Ukrainians, it is to continue existing as an independent state. For the Russians, it is to expand the buffer zone between them and NATO. And for the Americans? If they’re pushing to end their war of attrition with Russia, it could be for two reasons: because they’ve sufficiently weakened Moscow, or because they need Russia in peace to weaken China.
President Trump is personally urging a quick deal — how do you assess his influence on the peace process right now? And the absence of Europe from the negotiating table?
The photograph of Trump and Putin walking in Alaska, which hung on the walls of the White House during Zelensky’s visit, testifies the Trump direct influence on the negotiations. The American Administration is leading the push for a quick deal, just as the Biden Administration leaded the resistance in a cautious way such to avoided the use of nuclear weapons. But the prudence prolonged the conflict.
Regarding Europe, it is not at the table because it has neither sufficient military capabilities nor a geostrategic vision. This is a shame, because Russia, a nuclear and energy power, is an indispensable interlocutor for Europe.
Does the “Trump era” outlast Donald Trump himself? Is Trumpism now a movement larger than one man?
The shift of American interest from Europe to Asia began long before Trump. So did the destruction of the UN-centered system of international relations. We can say the same for the fatigue of the US military budget and the requirements for greater European contributions. Last but not least, the ironclad alliance with Israel, or many other aspects of Trump’s policies.
In my view, Trumpism is above all a revolution in communication method. His communication has become disruptive, arrogant, direct. It doesn’t need media intermediation. It is childish in its wording, but always focused on Washington’s long-term interests. I fear that institutional rudeness will outlive Trump, but in reality, Trump has ordered killing far fewer people than his predecessors.
Is liberal democracy weakening — or simply transforming?
I believe it’s weakening, but especially at home.
Without rules, there is no democracy. Before Trump, we had international rules, but only weak countries had to respect them. The world wasn’t democratic at all. In the US, however, the rules applied more effectively to the rich than to the poor, but they worked. Now Trump is constantly eroding the rules, and American democracy is weakening.
Is Europe more resilient to “Trump-style” politics than the U.S.?
Some of the worst dictatorships of the last century in the whole world developed in Europe; at that time America had demonstrated better resistance. Who knows nowadays? The fact that each country in Europe has a smaller and less diversify economy than U.S. doesn’t help them to defend theur democracy.
Are we entering a post-liberal political era?
I am not sure we’re already in a post-liberal era. I think not, even if the technological control by private subject is already very invasive. We’ve certainly emerged from the balance of the Cold War and we are witnessing America’s attempt to save the Unipolar era that followed the fall of the Berlin wall and Ussr leaving the U.S. as the sole superpower.
Given our capacity to destroy completely the whole humanity, we’re in a very dangerous historical phase.
Could renewed attention on the Jeffrey Epstein files further erode public trust in what we call liberal democracy?
The Epstein case is a criminal, espionage, lobbying, and financial affair that exposes the corruption at the top of the social ladder. These extremely serious suspects are symptomatic of an arrogance and impunity we struggled to imagine as real. Having said that, these crimes are slowly coming to light. The news about them gives me confidence in the functioning of the judiciary as a democratic counterweight to financial and political power. Over all a good new.
8) What is unfolding in Hungary and Germany reflects a broader struggle over Europe’s political future. Does U.S. political backing for Orbán’s campaign alter democratic competition in Hungary?
9) And in Germany can mainstream parties counter AfD’s appeal amid political uncertainty and economic worries?
The plot is once again the same. The U.S. backing isn’t new in substance, but rather in form. As an Italian, I’m well aware of American interference in Italian politics to keep the West’s largest communist party out of the governing majority. I’m not shocked if Washington now chooses Hungary’s Orban or Germany’s AfD to better achieve its interests. Paradoxically, it is even better for us because these interferences are now more transparent. The question, again, is why is U.S. doing it?
Does Washington want to make European political federation impossible? Does it want to weaken Germany, the continent’s leading country?
Sometimes the maneuvers of foreign powers succeed, other times they don’t. In this case, by the way, Russia is often trying to back the same actors of U.S. So we better think twice to embrace such characters.
We shouldn’t waste time to ask foreign countries not to interfere in our internal affairs because they will try to do that anyway; instead, we can ask ourselves to be aware. We are masters of our own destiny and we can decide not to play into others’ hands. We are still free to choose. Still.
Andrea Nicastro gave this interview on the occasion of his participation at the Delphi Economic Forum(22–25 April 2026) .
