Diplomat and former Ukrainian ambassador to the United States (2005–2010) and France (2014–2020) Oleh Shamshur spoke to The Ukrainian Week about the recent protests in the US against Donald Trump’s policies, the likelihood of more demonstrations, how the new president’s rhetoric is affecting Americans and Europeans, and also commented on The New York Times recent investigation into the hidden role of the United States in Ukraine’s military operations against Russia.
– On April 5th, demonstrations erupted in Washington and other US cities in protest against the policies of Donald Trump and his adviser, Elon Musk. Some Western analysts had already predicted the possibility of such protests. Should we brace for more?
– There are varying views on this. Trump’s political opponents argue that resistance to his policies is growing. Indeed, there have been protests, public statements, and signs of discontent during meetings between voters and Republican members of Congress, including some sizable demonstrations, like the one last Saturday. But so far, I don’t see a structured movement of resistance. The Democratic Party is in deep crisis, lacking a clear leader or coherent strategy for navigating the current climate.
Trump, meanwhile, continues his shock-and-awe approach — a full-frontal assault on traditional institutions and elites, relentlessly pushing through everything he planned for his four-year term. His statements shouldn’t be dismissed or downplayed; they should be taken seriously. He’s assembled a team based on loyalty, one that answers only to him. There’s no one in it who can tell Trump “no”— at least not for now.
Moreover, Trump holds significant control over Congress — both the House of Representatives and the Senate. From what we’ve observed, Republican lawmakers largely support almost all of the president’s initiatives. There are occasional moments of dissent (such as over new tariffs), but these voices are clearly not shaping the overall direction.
The real centre of resistance, for now, is the judiciary. Lawsuits have been filed to challenge some of Trump’s decisions, and several court rulings have temporarily blocked the implementation of measures he’s sought to enact.
It remains to be seen whether this trend will persist. One could envision a serious constitutional crisis unfolding in the U.S. if Trump begins to disregard court rulings. As of now, he’s largely been cautious, but should that shift, it could spark some significant institutional challenges.
At the heart of it all is the economy. Trump could face serious problems if he fails to control inflation, if there’s no improvement in the living standards of everyday Americans, or if macroeconomic indicators begin to deteriorate, prompting a backlash from the financial markets. The markets have already reacted negatively to Trump’s barrage of tariff announcements.
– A recent article in The New York Times sparked a lot of debate, shedding light on the often-overlooked role of the U.S. in Ukraine’s military operations against Russia. It’s clearly intended for a Western audience. Why do you think this piece was published at this particular moment?
It’s difficult to say for certain — we can only speculate, including on factors that go beyond the time required to gather and analyse the facts. By most accounts, The New York Times is generally seen as an anti-Trump publication, reflecting the views of the left and far-left wings of the Democratic Party. Its coverage of the war in Ukraine, however, tends to be largely objective.
That said, The New York Times has also published articles calling for a compromise with Russia, advocating for an end to the war through Ukrainian concessions. There were even members of the far-left of the Democratic Party in the U.S. House of Representatives who once circulated a letter to Joe Biden, suggesting that the U.S. was providing too much support to Ukraine. While such sentiments do exist within the Democratic Party, they remain in the minority — and that letter was eventually withdrawn under pressure from party leadership.
The facts presented in The New York Times article certainly give one pause. Above all, they point to the danger of allowing political expediency to shape critical military decisions. The authors of the piece specifically tie this issue to the start of a negative shift on the front lines. Of course, this is their interpretation of events, but I haven’t seen any official rebuttal from the Ukrainian side addressing the information they presented.
There’s also a broader point to consider regarding the article as a whole. In my view, both Ukraine and its partners have been far too open about military developments. Some matters, quite frankly, shouldn’t be part of the public discourse at this stage. When it comes to our partners, I often point to NATO’s communication strategy under Jens Stoltenberg, as well as to the approach of other Western officials: Why reveal to Putin the limits of your support for Ukraine? Why lay out your red lines — such as stating that NATO troops will never set foot in Ukraine, or that Western weapons will never be used to target sites inside Russia? Such information is more than enough for Putin; it allows him to fine-tune his next moves.
When Emmanuel Macron first suggested sending Western (non-combat) troops to Ukraine in early 2024, one of the key goals he outlined was to create “strategic ambiguity” for Putin — to make him think the West might take any action necessary to defend Ukraine. But that kind of messaging should have come at the outset of the full-scale war. By now, Putin already understands he won’t see Western combat troops in Ukraine, nor any move to establish a no-fly zone over the country. I don’t believe that the current discussions about possibly deploying “peacekeeping forces” after a hypothetical ceasefire have significantly altered his perspective on the situation.
I’ve said on more than one occasion that we need to shift the paradigm: instead of allowing Putin to blackmail Ukraine and its partners with nuclear threats and other forms of intimidation, he should be made to fear the intentions and actions of the anti-Putin coalition. Unfortunately, we must acknowledge today that this opportunity has been lost — at least for now.
But returning to your question: with full respect for the principle of free speech and the clear professionalism of the article’s authors, it’s crucial to understand it in the context of the growing public scepticism in the US regarding continued support for Ukraine, as well as the nature of the “peacekeeping” efforts emerging from the Trump administration.
– A few days ago, The Economist published a poll revealing how attitudes are shifting between Americans and Europeans, as well as towards Russia. There are noticeable changes within the US too, particularly among Republicans. But even Democrats, following Trump’s election, have gradually softened their stance on Russia and become more sceptical of America’s traditional allies. What’s your outlook on the impact of Trump’s rhetoric? Do you think his support is likely to grow?
– Let’s start with the American public. Polls show a noticeable decline in support for providing aid to Ukraine. That said, a majority of Americans — around 52–55%, according to a recent study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs — still believe that supporting Ukraine, including militarily, remains important. However, there’s a significant divide between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. Most Republicans take a stance that isn’t favourable to us, backing Trump’s approach to ending the war in Ukraine. This is a worrying, though not surprising, trend — it’s been developing for some time.
Trump closely monitors the mood of his voters, especially his core base. His behaviour, his leniency towards Russia, and his willingness to end the war at any cost — even if it means disregarding Ukraine’s interests — are all influencing public opinion, particularly among Republicans.
When it comes to Europeans, the situation is similarly complex. Europe has finally woken up, but it’s no longer enough to simply wake up — it’s time to get out of bed.
We’re now hearing more reasonable statements from European leaders, and they’re making the right decisions, especially regarding rearmament and strengthening Europe’s military capabilities. However, it’s important to acknowledge that their concrete actions are still lagging behind their rhetoric, and implementing these plans will take time.
It’s crucial to dramatically scale up the production of military equipment and increase related financial spending, despite the strained state of public finances in many EU countries. Convincing ordinary citizens to accept that additional funds must be allocated for defence and aid to Ukraine is an incredibly difficult, yet absolutely essential, task for Europe’s leaders. Their success will largely depend on their ability to act as true statesmen.
Overall, a significant portion of people in Europe continue to support aid to Ukraine and view Putin’s Russia negatively. However, when it comes to the reality that supporting Ukraine and increasing security spending will require economic sacrifices and potentially lead to a decline in citizens’ living standards and purchasing power, Europeans’ attitudes become more complicated. Economic concerns are their primary worry.
That said, there are those who recognise that sacrifices must be made — that Europe’s security and defence capabilities need to be strengthened to withstand this growing confrontation. This confrontation, after all, has already begun in earnest between the democratic world and a group of aggressor nations threatening European security and attempting to reshape global politics in their favour.
— Is there a way to counter Trump’s rhetoric? For instance, from the European Union’s side.
— Following the meeting between the Ukrainian and American presidents in the Oval Office, we saw a clear shift: Europeans stepped up their support for Ukraine through statements, as well as diplomatic and political actions. However, the focus now must shift away from discussing potential European roles in facilitating a ceasefire or truce, should one be implemented. What’s critical is that practical support begins arriving immediately, in quantities and forms that go beyond what we’ve seen before. The situation is dire, particularly in the military sphere, and substantial efforts are required, as was highlighted at the start of 2024.
The central issue now is halting Putin’s advance and regaining the military-strategic initiative. If this isn’t done, he will continue to undermine any attempts at negotiations and impose his own terms for ending the war. We know that his conditions are not only humiliating but completely unacceptable for Ukraine.
