CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 9–15 February 2025

Three publications (The Washington Post, Foreign Policy, and The Wall Street Journal) were selected to prepare this report on how Ukraine has been portrayed in the North American press during the past week. The sample was compiled based on their impact on public opinion as well as on their professional reputation, popularity among the readership, and topical relevance. These publications represent centrist viewpoints on the political spectrum.

This MMS report covers only the most-read and relevant articles about Ukraine, as ranked by the respective North American publications themselves in the past week. Its scope covers promoted articles on home pages and articles from special sections on Ukraine, with the hashtag #Ukraine, from the paper editions of the publications, and about Ukraine from opinion columns and editorials.

Featured topics

• The world and Ukraine: signs persist that Washington will not abandon Ukraine; Ukraine deserves a sustainable peace; is a fair deal possible in the Russo-Ukrainian war?; Trump’s Ukraine gamble risks weakening US, European security; NATO won’t save Ukraine, but the right Ukraine deal could save NATO.
• Russia at war: Moscow cheers as Trump opens Ukraine talks, but Kremlin skepticism remains; the cost of Russian occupation is very high. 

MMS summaries

Signs persist that Washington will not abandon Ukraine. Jim Geraghty (Washington Post) observes that the US President’s Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia and his daughter are no doves when it comes to resolving military conflicts. The author opines that Special Envoy Keith Kellogg and his daughter Meaghan Mobbs have taken a tough stance on Russia’s war against Ukraine: “The Ukrainians might not have a better friend than Mobbs. The R.T. Weatherman Foundation [headed by Meaghan Mobbs] has been present in Ukraine since the start of the war. Its efforts include establishing and running a logistics hub on the Romania-Ukraine border and delivering more than 10,000 pallets of medicines, medical supplies, and other aid to over 70 aid organizations and hospitals in Ukraine.” In addition, the Weatherman Foundation also coordinated and sponsored a trip to Ukraine by Kellogg in January 2013. There are other signs that President Donald Trump’s team does not intend to leave Ukraine alone with Russia, including their interest in gaining access to Ukraine’s rare earth mineral deposits. According to Geraghty, the actions and statements of the Special Envoy and his daughter do not indicate that they are “interested in giving Putin a great deal.”

Ukraine deserves a sustainable peace. Michael Kimmage and Maxim Trudolubov (Foreign Policy) believe that the only way to resolve the Russo-Ukrainian war is through small, gradual agreements. One big public agreement can turn out to be a mistake, as happened with the Minsk agreements in 2014/15: “Minsk should haunt US policymakers. Its dispiriting example should be studied carefully before a new season of negotiations begins. Minsk reflected France and Germany’s lack of leverage. The late-night discussions in the Belarusan capital were not much more than photo-ops in the end. Ukraine and its supporters cannot afford to repeat the exercise.” According to the authors, Ukraine’s allies should learn the following lessons from the Minsk agreements: “no deal is better than a bad deal; that one must know the nature and limits of one’s leverage; and that not every negotiation need be high-profile and media-driven.” Therefore, today’s diplomacy will have to synthesize two separate truths. First, despite economic difficulties and military fatigue, the Russian Federation is still politically stable and militarily resilient: “Putin has managed to prolong the war longer than many expected. In early 2022, his own advisors warned of the financial panic, inflation, and shortages of essential goods that war would bring. None of these predictions fully materialized, though some are now beginning to take effect.” Second, Ukraine is not about to give up—and it should not do so: “Ukraine, which is struggling to hold ground, has been suffering from a mobilization crisis. Having endured almost three years of war against one of the world’s major military powers, however, Ukraine still controls some 80 percent of its territory. Though Russia continues to absorb Ukrainian territory, it has taken and held only one Ukrainian city, Mariupol, which was destroyed in the war. Ukraine’s political and social structures have withstood incredible pressure. Like Russia, Ukraine is not getting stronger over time, but it has no reason and no desire to surrender.” Kimmage and Trudolubov conclude, “Placed side by side, these two truths recommend a phased diplomacy, prioritizing de-escalation over grand but fragile agreements. It calls for a diplomacy less of miles than of inches.”

Is a fair deal possible in the Russo-Ukrainian war? David Ignatius (Washington Post) argues that President Donald Trump will be measured by whether he achieves a sustainable peace for Ukraine. Statements made this week by senior officials in Washington and Moscow have raised concerns among Ukrainians and Kyiv’s Western supporters. These concerns were heightened by US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth’s statement in Brussels that “Ukraine must drop its ‘illusionary goal’ of recovering all its territory and forget about joining NATO.” According to the author, there are some encouraging signs that the Donald Trump team is serious about supporting a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. As Hegseth stressed, “A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again,” and these guarantees “must be backed by capable…troops.” The US presidential administration wants this work to be done by Europeans—who, according to Trump, have not paid enough for Ukraine. Ignatius concludes, “Trump is right that ‘no more lives should be lost’ in this terrible war. But he will be measured as president by whether he achieves a just peace agreement that doesn’t benefit the aggressor. The process is just beginning, but so far Trump doesn’t appear to have caved to the Kremlin.”

Trump’s Ukraine gamble risks weakening US, European security. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal criticizes US President Donald Trump’s approach to negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine, arguing that he is making unilateral concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin while sidelining Ukraine. Unlike his usual hardline negotiation tactics, Trump appears to be giving ground in advance, raising the board’s concerns about whether he is prioritizing a lasting and honorable peace or simply seeking a quick deal at Ukraine’s expense. The authors warn that Trump is “treating Mr. Putin and Russia unlike any other negotiating counterpart” by making “major concessions first” without securing anything in return. Moreover, Trump’s decision to inform Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky only after speaking with Putin suggests that Ukraine is being excluded from shaping its own future. The opinion piece highlights Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statement that Ukraine’s NATO membership and a return to its pre-2014 borders are “unrealistic,” noting that Trump later backed this stance. This signals a willingness to accept Russian territorial gains without demanding adequate security guarantees for Ukraine, a move that could embolden future aggression. The authors further argue that Trump’s handling of Ukraine could weaken both US and European security. While Trump and his allies claim they are pushing European nations to take greater responsibility for their own defence, they warn that “deterrence isn’t divisible,” meaning that abandoning Ukraine now could ultimately require even greater US military investment to protect NATO’s eastern flank. The editorial board notes that allowing Putin to dominate Ukraine could embolden China to act more aggressively in the Pacific, drawing the US into even more conflicts. To secure a sustainable peace, Trump would need to shift tactics and pressure Russia by increasing military aid to Ukraine and lifting restrictions on how Kyiv can use Western weapons. If Trump does not change course, the authors warn, he risks orchestrating a withdrawal from Ukraine that could mirror the US failures in Afghanistan or Vietnam.

NATO won’t save Ukraine, but the right Ukraine deal could save NATO. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. (Wall Street Journal) contends that neither Vladimir Putin nor Donald Trump have a viable approach to ending the war in Ukraine, emphasizing that Ukraine’s NATO membership was never a realistic possibility due to deep divisions within the alliance. The author dismisses the idea that Trump’s suggested concession on NATO membership was a major giveaway, pointing out that “of 32 members of the alliance, which unanimously must admit any new member, only nine have seriously advocated for Ukraine.” Instead, the real issue lies in how Europe and the US plan to support Ukraine beyond immediate military aid. Jenkins, Jr., suggests that Trump, if pragmatic, would recognize that a strong European commitment to Ukraine’s security could allow him to negotiate a favourable settlement. However, if Europe wavers, Trump may pursue a deal that prioritizes American interests at the expense of Kyiv and its allies: “If Europe is not willing, then he will look for a different kind of success that will be less to Europe’s and Ukraine’s liking.” The author also challenges the long-standing nuclear fear that has influenced Western policy, arguing that Russia’s nuclear arsenal has proven ineffective in deterring Western support for Ukraine. The war has shown that “Russia is a conventional military power that can be thwarted, defeated, and deterred by conventional means,” and that nuclear threats have been largely rhetorical. This realization, according to Jenkins, Jr., could reshape NATO’s security framework by making European defence less dependent on US nuclear deterrence. He also claims that Ukraine’s NATO membership would be a constant source of instability, potentially provoking nationalist factions on both sides: “Ukraine will always be a many-faceted headache for the alliance.” Ultimately, the author frames Putin’s war as a strategic disaster, concluding that he should negotiate an exit while he still has leverage, because “Europe and the US are committed to raising the Ukrainian military to a NATO standard even without it being a NATO member.” 

Moscow cheers as Trump opens Ukraine talks, but Kremlin skepticism remains. Alexey Kovalev (Foreign Policy) highlights the overwhelming jubilation in Moscow following Donald Trump’s announcement of negotiations with Vladimir Putin on Ukraine’s future, which exclude Ukraine and its European allies. Trump’s administration immediately signaled key concessions to Russia, with U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and rejected the idea of restoring its full territorial sovereignty. This development was met with euphoric reactions in Russian state media, where pundits declared that “Trump is now doing our job for us” by weakening European unity. The exclusion of Ukraine from negotiations was particularly celebrated, as pro-Kremlin journalist Aleksandr Kots noted that “there are ‘two men deciding’ Ukraine’s fate while Europe is reduced to providing ‘backup vocals.’” However, despite the triumphalism, skepticism lingers in Moscow. Russian officials recall their previous disappointment with Trump’s presidency, when his initial rhetoric did not translate into major policy shifts favouring Russia. Kovalev underscores that Trump’s unpredictability makes it uncertain whether his administration will ultimately follow through on actions that benefit the Kremlin. At the same time, the author argues that structural obstacles remain to any settlement that favours Russia, given Putin’s uncompromising territorial demands and the limited leverage of his military. Although Russian propaganda promotes the idea that time is on Moscow’s side, the reality is different: “The widespread narrative that Russia is relentlessly advancing with time on its side collapses when you look at the minuscule gains and tremendous toll in Russian lives and equipment.” With exhausted forces and severe equipment losses, Russia’s reliance on external allies like Iran and North Korea has not significantly altered the battlefield dynamics. While Ukraine is also facing fatigue, Kovalev suggests that Kyiv’s best hope lies in stalling negotiations until Putin’s rigid demands frustrate Trump. In this scenario, Ukraine is betting that Putin’s inflexibility and the Kremlin’s inability to control Trump’s erratic decision-making will ultimately work in its favour: “It’s early days, but we may soon see whether Putin’s strategy pays off—and this week’s champagne toasts in Moscow were warranted.”

The cost of Russian occupation is very high. Nataliya Gumenyuk (Foreign Policy) argues that tacit recognition of Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territories could cost more than the hot phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war. For Western analysts and politicians, it is logical that Kyiv should want to start peace talks, given all its losses to date. For Ukrainians, however, the perspective is somewhat different: “Such a scenario diverges sharply from the victory plan that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky outlined in the fall of 2024. And many Ukrainians themselves are deeply skeptical of a settlement, saying that no deal is better than a bad deal.” A key reason why Ukrainians are motivated to continue the struggle is their awareness of the consequences of Russian occupation: “Many Ukrainians recognize that what observers in the West have characterized as brutal excesses in occupied areas—human rights abuses, political repression, and war crimes—are in fact a central part of Russia’s war strategy.” Moscow is using the occupied territories as a tool to destabilize the situation in the whole state: “The Kremlin, while pretending to negotiate, used the eight years of so-called frozen conflict with Ukraine after 2014 to create a launch pad for the larger invasion. Put simply, Russian control over any part of Ukraine subverts and corrodes Ukrainian sovereignty everywhere.” According to Gumenyuk, “In the three years since the full-scale invasion, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported the Ukrainian army. They have done so out of a strong sense of patriotism but also because they know there is little chance of survival under Moscow’s rule. Even now, most Ukrainians see continuing to fight as incomparably better than the terror of Russian occupation. For the West, failure to recognize how Russia is using Ukrainian territory to undermine and destabilize the whole country risks making a cease-fire even more costly than war.”