Dane Waters, an American political strategist, Republican, and advocate for direct democracy, served as a political appointee at George H.W. Bush’s administration but has notably refused to support Donald Trump. In an interview with The Ukrainian Weekly, he shares his insights on the shifting global order, the consequences of Trump’s policies, and emerging opportunities for Europe.
***
– Why was Ukraine excluded from the negotiations in Riyadh?
– My view is that Donald Trump and his team are looking for the simplest, fastest way to reach a settlement, and direct talks between the U.S. and Russia would achieve that. Bringing Zelensky and European leaders to the table would complicate negotiations—something Trump wants to avoid.
If Ukraine and Europe were involved, they would make demands, which would slow things down. And for Ukraine, emotions would run high—after all, we’re talking about the deaths of Ukrainians and the abduction of children.
I have no doubt Trump is aiming for some kind of signing ceremony with Putin by the end of the month or early March. That’s why it was great to see Turkey stand with Zelensky in defending territorial integrity.
Because once you allow the basis of territorial integrity to go away, then you’re going to have superpowers or even smaller powers try to take land by force because the precedent has been set that it’s okay for that to happen.
– After the talks in Saudi Arabia, Trump essentially blamed Ukraine, implying that it was the one that started the war. What are your thoughts on that?
– I think he believes that it, by doing that, in his mind, it’s a negotiation tactic to make Putin feel more at ease during negotiations. When Putin is more at ease during negotiations, there are higher chances of a compromise. Trump likely believes that Putin needs to save face with the Russian people and justify his actions. He’s giving Putin the perfect sound bite to take back to his people—to explain away the 800,000 deaths, or whatever the actual number is, of Russian soldiers.
– After the meeting in Riyadh and Trump’s comments, some on Ukrainian social media are claiming that the U.S. has essentially abandoned Ukraine to Russia. Do you agree with that view?
– I think people need to understand what drives Donald Trump. He’s motivated by economic opportunities—both for America and for himself and his family. That’s what guides him. Under Trump, the U.S. focuses only on situations that offer economic benefits, and at the top of that list is Russia.
Bringing American companies back into Russia, pursuing new ventures in the Arctic—it’s all about economic gain for the U.S. Just look at what Marco Rubio said. They’re already excited about the opportunities and economic prospects after the war.
Democracy and freedom—those aren’t things that matter to him. So, naturally, he doesn’t care about freedom and democracy in Ukraine, either. He sees no value in Ukraine.
That’s why Trump is going to push through a deal and force it on both Ukraine and Europe. Once the deal is made, Zelensky won’t have much of a choice.
Now, there’s a scenario where if Putin completely double-crosses the U.S. or does something outrageous, it could anger Trump enough to turn against Russia. I don’t see that happening, but it’s always a possibility. The reality, though, is that U.S. support for Ukraine is coming to an end.
That said, Ukraine still has options. Ukraine and Europe can choose to keep fighting—they don’t have to accept a deal that’s forced on them. I believe defending territorial integrity is crucial, and I’d love to see Europe unite fully in support of Ukraine.
– I’ve seen the idea that Russia now faces the challenge of balancing between two blocs—the West and China. Do you think Trump is trying to pull Russia away from China’s influence?
– Let’s just remember that Putin never lives up to any promise he makes, and he may just go along with the US for a little while, but he’s not going to do anything to forsake China. China has been there for him and will continue to be there for him. So, he’s not going to forsake China. I believe that he will throw America under the bus before he throws China under the bus.
– Do you think a NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is possible, especially with the ongoing discussions in Europe?
– Putin has made it clear that he went to war to prevent NATO from reaching Russia’s borders. There’s no way he would allow NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, even as peacekeepers. In his mind—or at least in the narrative he’s sold to his people—that’s the very reason he launched the war.
Even if NATO countries were to send their own troops individually, Putin would still see them as NATO soldiers operating on what he considers “his” territory. So, from his perspective, there’s no scenario where NATO soldiers in Ukraine—peacekeepers or not—would be acceptable.
At the same time, I believe the U.S. is stepping back from its NATO commitments because it sees the alliance as having been created after World War II primarily for Europe’s security. And at least in Trump’s view, America isn’t part of Europe, so there’s no real reason for the U.S. to play such a major role in NATO.
On top of that, Trump has pushed for NATO members to increase their defence spending to 5% of GDP, which is unrealistic. I think he’s only doing it as a way to argue that they’re not meeting their obligations. And let’s be honest—there’s no way the U.S. is going to commit 5% of its GDP to NATO.
– Could Chinese or Brazilian peacekeepers be deployed instead of NATO? There have been proposals along those lines, although China has already declined.
– Look, even if they agree on a demarcation line, there’s no doubt that Putin won’t honor it. He’ll claim that the local population is simply trying to reclaim their land—just as he did in the early days of the war when he refused to acknowledge that Russian forces were fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Now, imagine a Brazilian peacekeeper is killed. Brazil might be outraged, but it’s unlikely to take significant action. But if a British or French peacekeeper were killed, it would spark a major international uproar. On top of that, Putin has long pushed the narrative of Europeans as “barbarians at the gates.” He’ll do everything he can to prevent a European military presence in Ukraine.
– In your view, what is the United States’ ultimate goal in resolving the conflict? Does Washington envision a resolution as freezing the front line, withdrawing Russian troops, or something else?
– Trump’s goal is to punish Zelensky and befriend Putin.
— So in the end, Ukraine could face a choice—either accept an unacceptable deal and capitulate or lose U.S. support.
– We need to distinguish between overall American support and the support of Donald Trump’s administration. There are still people in the U.S. who back Ukraine, even though their numbers are dwindling. So, I wouldn’t say it’s a matter of losing American support entirely.
The reality is, Trump just doesn’t care about Ukraine. He looks at everything in terms of dollars and cents, and to him, there’s more opportunity in Russia. Also, to him, Russia is a parody of the United States, but Ukraine is not.
Trump views Putin as someone on his level. He doesn’t see Zelensky that way. To him, neither Ukraine nor its president is on par with Russia or Putin.
And I do believe Putin is going to get what he wants. Sure, he’ll have to give something up, but it’ll be minimal. The key point is that Trump is going to say ‘no’ to NATO membership for Ukraine. And then that’s what Putin is going to be hanging his hat on and saying: listen, people, we succeeded by stopping the spread of NATO on our borders. So, it’s a huge win for him. In fact, this whole situation is already a huge success for him.
– By the way, Russian political analysts have already suggested that, through the war with Ukraine, Putin has achieved his goal: the ability to negotiate with the U.S. on equal footing. Do you think this war has truly shifted the global balance of power?
– It has definitely changed the balance of power, I believe. The war has drawn clear lines. But the outcome will determine how much it has shifted the balance. If it results in territorial concessions, then absolutely, it has changed the balance, because it means the most powerful will survive.
We’d be going back to colonial times, where larger countries just absorb the smaller ones. It’s like Darwin’s survival of the fittest.
I believe America’s isolationism under Trump is dangerous for the world. Trump doesn’t fully appreciate or understand the importance of protecting territorial integrity.
This isn’t the best time for the world, given how America is behaving in this situation. I think this approach divides the world more than it unites it. But it also presents an opportunity for Europe to break away from America. Ultimately, this could lead to a diminishing of American influence, as other parts of the world—Europe, including Ukraine—will realize they can and should act independently.
I think it’s crucial for Europe to see this as an opportunity. To me, this feels like a divorce—America is divorcing Europe. It’s a nasty divorce, but one that might have been necessary. Europe will survive, but now it just has to figure out how to get through this and thrive.
