John Herbst, American diplomat, former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States to Ukraine, and currently Director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council of the United States.First of all, I would like to ask you to comment on the timelines of the ultimatums issued by the American President.Initially, Donald Trump gave Putin 50 days, but later shortened this period to 10–12 days. I would like to hear your perspective on the situation. Why did Donald Trump reduce the timeframe for Putin? In Ukraine, we tend to associate this with the fact that Russia continues to bomb us regularly. But what was happening around the American President himself? Why did he make this decision?It’s very simple. President Trump has been trying, since his return to the Oval Office, to achieve a durable peace between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine, since at least March, has made it clear, specifically in response to Trump’s proposals, that it is ready to compromise in order to reach such a peace.Russia has rejected every Trump proposal. I would even say that the concessions, perhaps unwise ones, offered by the White House were still not enough to persuade Putin to enter serious negotiations to end the fighting. Trump has grown increasingly frustrated. We first saw signs of that frustration back in April.That frustration finally boiled over two weeks ago when Trump announced that unless Russia agreed to a ceasefire and actually ended the fighting within 50 days, the U.S. would impose punishing secondary sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil and gas, along with additional sanctions on Russia itself.Trump also said two weeks ago that the U.S. would be sending advanced weapons to Ukraine. And because Russia has shown no signs of compromise since that announcement, Trump said yesterday: forget 50 days, Putin now has no more than 12 days to do this.That is where all this comes from.How tough is President Trump actually willing to be? There are a few different scenarios being discussed. Here in Ukraine, we're trying to get a sense of how far the American president might be prepared to go in confronting Russia. We’d really like to hear your take on this. Look, the first thing I should say is that I don't know how severe this will be. So far, Trump has been reluctant to take serious steps in response to Russia's ongoing aggression.But it's clear that over the past five or six weeks, Trump has pursued a policy of strength – first toward Iran, an ally of Russia, and also toward Russia itself. That was evident at the NATO summit. It was evident when Trump overruled the foolish decision made by our Defense Department to pause aid to Ukraine, aid that had been agreed to back during the Biden administration.It was also evident in the strong statement Trump made two weeks ago. So I think we're going to see serious sanctions. We are already seeing an energetic effort by the Trump team to get Patriot anti-missile defense systems to Ukraine over the past couple of weeks. And we've seen the Trump team pledge to send offensive weapons to Ukraine as well.I believe Trump is going to come down hard on the Kremlin. Hopefully, that will include secondary sanctions so that India, China, and other countries will decide to reduce substantially, if not completely, their purchase of contraband Russian oil and gas.We also understand that Putin is waging an irrational war. This isn’t a conflict rooted in clear or legitimate reasons. The justifications for war exist only in Putin’s mind, a product of his historiosophical worldview and his rather absurd vision of Russia’s role in civilization. At the same time, he’s willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives to fulfill that vision. I believe Donald Trump sees that too.It’s possible that Trump might be more willing to supply us with heavy weapons and in greater quantities than the Biden administration has. And maybe even Putin will start to realize that he’s entering a danger zone where his instinct for self-preservation could finally kick in. At one point, Russia’s civil aviation system came to a halt, and not because of any massive missile strike.So Putin’s survival instinct and America’s willingness to provide us with serious military aid may well be closely linked.It is noteworthy that Trump said the United States needs to send Ukraine advanced weapons. It is also significant that the Trump administration has decided this must include offensive weapons, although we do not yet know which specific weapons they have in mind.Putin believes he can win this war. He believes he can outmaneuver the United States and Ukraine’s European partners. He believes that eventually the West will grow tired of supporting Ukraine, and that he can therefore achieve victory on the battlefield.That is why it is important, if Trump wants to establish a durable peace, to demonstrate clearly and decisively within the next 10 or 12 days that Putin cannot win on the battlefield. The United States is not going to abandon Ukraine. The West is not going to abandon Ukraine. And the economic cost to Russia of continuing this aggression will be overwhelming.I cannot say for sure what Trump will do. But if he wants a lasting peace, he must convince Putin that the era of weak Western policies, which began with Russia’s war on Georgia in 2008 and continued when Russia seized Crimea in 2014, is over.Trump can do that by announcing new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, paid for by European partners, as he has demanded. He can impose punishing sanctions on the Russian economy, including sanctions targeting countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas. He can take further steps to reinforce NATO in the face of the security threat posed by Russia.Ten days ago, the United States deployed American nuclear weapons to Great Britain. Nearly two weeks ago, General Donahue, who commands U.S. Army forces in Europe, said that NATO could quickly and easily take Kaliningrad from Russia in the event of a confrontation.These are signs of growing American assertiveness in response to Kremlin aggression. If we continue such policies, impose heavy sanctions on Russia and its allies, and provide Ukraine with weapons that make it nearly impossible for Russia to seize more territory while enabling Ukraine to reclaim land, Putin will see that he is facing a determined West and a committed United States.Together with Ukraine, this would force Putin to negotiate in good faith. That is what Trump should aim to achieve.There is a good chance this will happen, but it is not certain.I just wanted to clarify something. A few weeks ago, it was reported that the American president asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky whether strikes on Moscow and St. Petersburg were a possibility.We understand this wasn’t a direct quote. It was something American journalists wrote about. Still, it's a very serious claim.From what I can tell, Donald Trump may be preparing for possible military scenarios. I'm not making any predictions – in times like these, predicting anything is a risky business.This could be a moment when Trump realizes that instead of winning the Nobel Peace Prize, he might have to show resolve and take a path more similar to Winston Churchill’s, if that comparison is fair. It's a huge responsibility. Far too big. And the Russians are not prepared for it.That's a very interesting and important question. Here's my understanding regarding Trump's approach to the possibility of Ukraine striking Moscow or St. Petersburg.From what I know, in the phone call between Trump and Zelensky on July 4, it was Trump, not Zelensky, who raised this possibility. This conversation was leaked and appeared in an article, I believe in the Financial Times in the UK. Following that leak, Trump made a public statement saying that of course Ukraine should not attack St. Petersburg or Moscow.What I don't know is this: since Trump raised the issue to begin with, was that public statement his new position on the matter, or was it an effort to distance the United States somewhat from a potential Ukrainian strike on Moscow or St. Petersburg? That remains an open question.Frankly, I think the way this issue has played out is, on balance, a positive development. It sends a message to Putin that Trump may be open to the idea of Ukraine striking Russia’s two main cities, which could be highly embarrassing for Putin. That kind of uncertainty projects strength.The mere possibility of such a strike might be enough to help push Putin toward peace, but not on its own. It must be combined with all the other measures I have mentioned, including punishing sanctions and the delivery of major new weapons systems.I would also add that the United States should push strongly for the transfer of Russia’s frozen state assets to Ukraine. That would show that Ukraine has the financial means to sustain its war effort for more than three years even without additional assistance.And with the support it is currently receiving from the EU and the United States, it could last even longer.What about the prospect of a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin? Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has already stated that he is ready to host such a meeting. We understand that this is more of a diplomatic move, a play in the public arena.There have been several low-yield meetings in Istanbul. Medinsky, Umerov – we understand that Umerov was initially the Minister of Defense and is now the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council. Medinsky's mandate was simply to repeat Putin’s demands, as instructed: “You’ll go to Istanbul and repeat my conditions.” Fortunately, a portion of Ukrainian prisoners of war were returned.That was the main outcome. So what are the prospects of a meeting between our president and Putin?I think Zelenskyy is smart to ask for a meeting with Putin. Given the fact that Putin does not want peace, it is understandable why he does not want to meet with Zelenskyy.He does not want to make it obvious to the world that he is not interested in peace.That is why Russia is quite comfortable having Manditski meet with Umerov. That level of engagement is much lower, and Russia’s refusal to compromise in such meetings draws far less attention than if Putin himself were meeting with Zelenskyy. That is the basic point.If Trump follows through with his stated intent to apply major pressure on the Kremlin at the end of this 10 to 12 day period, the resulting pain for Putin might be enough to make him consider ending the fighting. In that case, there would be no reason for Putin to say no to a summit-level meeting.He might even want Trump to be part of that meeting, and I believe Trump would not oppose that. But again, Putin is not going to engage directly with Zelenskyy unless he is ready to make peace. Right now, he believes he can win this war and outlast both Trump and the West.Trump needs to prove him wrong if he wants to succeed in achieving peace.How do you view Putin’s demands? From what I understand, he keeps shifting his ambitions. He began the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by demanding that NATO roll back its borders to where they were in 1997.More recently, about a month ago, one of Lavrov’s deputy ministers said that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and possibly Finland should be demilitarized. The focus was on the Baltic states.So is there any clear understanding at this point of what Putin actually wants? There’s a public framework they keep referring to, but it’s likely there are also additional hidden demands. Putin often likes to use the phrase “realities on the ground.”But there are also real consequences on the Russian side, including issues with their civil aviation sector. And new realities may soon emerge in St. Petersburg and Moscow.We understand that the use of drones could pose a symmetrical threat to the Russian Federation itself. I think the Russian military is aware of that. They weren’t expecting the kind of entanglement they’re now facing. Still, the core issue remains the Kremlin’s internal and external demands.There's no question about it.As you suggest, Putin's appetite for land goes beyond Ukraine. The logic, if it can be called that, behind his attack on Ukraine three, five, or even eleven years ago could just as easily be applied to other countries that were once under Moscow's control during the Soviet era.That includes three NATO allies: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The Kremlin's desire to dominate the security environment along its borders leads to demands for reducing defense arrangements in former Warsaw Pact states such as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czechia. Even Finland is now in the picture, as you pointed out.All of this underscores why the United States has a critical interest in ensuring that Putin’s aggression in Ukraine fails. It is essential for American security, stability, and prosperity.I believe President Trump is beginning to understand this. We are starting to see the right policies take shape in Washington to make it harder for Putin to succeed in Ukraine. Strengthening NATO defenses, as I have already mentioned, is a key part of that effort.China. It’s almost a ritual question at this point.I think everyone is wondering what might happen during the upcoming meeting between Xi Jinping and Putin. Putin plans to mark the anniversary of the victory over Imperial Japan. There have also been rumors that U.S. President Donald Trump might join them.As far as I can tell, that’s not currently part of his plans, and there are some clear reservations. We’re not in a position to make predictions – today’s information can change tomorrow, and something new might happen the day after that. Everything is constantly shifting. What’s more important is China’s stance. We’ve received some rather troubling signals from Chinese diplomats suggesting they won’t allow Russia to lose.It’s clear that China is using Russia’s war against Ukraine to advance its own interests. For Beijing, this war is a tool – a way to negotiate with the European Union, with the United States, and with others. Perhaps China isn’t seeking a Mao-style revolution, but it may be pursuing a new kind of global Chinese revolution on its own terms.And there’s a major summit scheduled for early September.It's really quite amazing. Putin has handled President Trump very badly, giving him no concessions as Trump has tried to achieve peace in Ukraine.Interestingly, Xi has made a similar mistake. China's aggressive stance in this war is clear. As you mentioned, the Chinese foreign minister said they cannot let Russia lose the war. That is remarkable. China had tried to hide its support for Russia since the large-scale invasion three and a half years ago, but now it is not hiding it at all.Recently, Ukraine found a Chinese drone on its territory – an offensive weapon, not just Chinese spare parts or components for Russian weapons, but an actual Chinese drone. So Chinese support for Moscow’s aggression is now completely out in the open.The United States had threatened sanctions against China if it armed Russia. The Trump administration now needs to follow through on that threat. Doing so might force China to choose between economic ties with the United States and its support for Russia’s war of aggression.This is a critical moment in relations with China.One more point, since you brought up the Xi-Putin meeting. Xi is planning a major celebration this fall to mark the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II in the Pacific, and he has invited Putin.In an apparent attempt to manage Trump, even while rejecting all of Trump’s proposals, Putin said, “Maybe I’ll see Trump in China at that event.” As far as I can tell, there has been no response to that idea from the White House.I believe Trump has grown tired of speaking with Putin, because whatever Putin may say on the phone never leads to concrete Russian actions to end the war in Ukraine. I would be surprised if Trump agreed to attend that event, not only because it is essentially a propaganda venue for Xi, but also because Trump has no compelling reason at the moment to meet with Putin, given Putin’s consistent obstruction of Trump’s efforts to achieve lasting peace in Ukraine.I’d like to ask you about the threats Ukraine is facing. Of course, it’s difficult to predict what the domestic situation in Ukraine will look like in a few months. So much depends on a range of factors – the judgment of the Ukrainian people, the leadership of Ukraine’s government, and the decisions made by both Europe and the United States. Unfortunately, the situation isn’t getting any easier for Ukraine.I’d like to hear your view on the Western position. We know that European countries have their stance, and so does the United States. What do you think might be most frustrating to Europeans and Americans when it comes to Ukrainian politics? What are we doing, or not doing, that could be causing concern?Look, my view is that it is critical for the United States to support Ukraine so that Putin fails in his war of aggression.I believe President Trump is beginning to understand this, although he is approaching it from a different perspective. Some people in his administration do not grasp the importance of what I just said, while others understand it completely. Still, the policies we have seen over the past six weeks make it clear that Trump is moving in the right direction.In Europe, with the exception of the Eastern NATO members such as the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and Czechia, there was initially little understanding of how dangerous Putin’s war in Ukraine was for NATO and for Europe as a whole. Now, other countries are also starting to recognize this, and that is a positive development.People in EU countries, with some exceptions in the western part of the union and of course the exceptions of Slovakia and Hungary, now understand the stakes. That is why many of them have stepped up their support as American aid to Ukraine has declined.The extraordinary efforts of the Ukrainian people to defend themselves have inspired broader support from the West.There have been internal challenges in Ukraine. One serious misstep was the attempt by Bankova to undermine anti-corruption institutions. That raised concerns in the West, but Zelenskyy wisely pivoted away from that approach and seems to have defused the issue.Russia has tried to exploit that situation, but with very limited success. At this point, essentially no success at all.