Interview with American political analyst, Doctor of Philosophy in Politics from Oxford University, lecturer at Georgia Gwinnett College (USA), Professor David Felsen.
-The media is increasingly publishing news about the so-called "Trump plan" in Ukraine. According to the plan, hostilities along the lateral demarcation line will cease in exchange for small security guarantees for Ukraine from the United States. What guarantees can we talk about if the United States refuses to allow Ukraine to join NATO, and Moscow is categorically against the deployment of NATO troops along the demarcation line between Russia and Ukraine?
-I believe that the Trump Administration will be focused on bringing an end to the conflict in Ukraine because it is a commitment that he made to voters during the electoral campaign. The administration is also quite reluctant to provide additional military assistance to Ukraine, as it is committed to limiting spending on support for foreign conflicts. However, the administration acknowledges that there is significant support for Ukraine, even among Republican lawmakers in Congress who take a strong stance against Russia, and it must balance these perspectives.
The administration will likely urge both Russia and Ukraine to agree to a cessation of hostilities along a line of demarcation that freezes the current positions of Russian forces inside Ukraine. This proposal will not be acceptable to Ukraine, but its options are fairly limited. The presence of United States or North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops may not be acceptable to Russia, but this would be the price Russia would have to pay in exchange for territorial concessions from Ukraine.
Additionally, the current administration has concerns regarding the contributions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and does not consider any discussion about its expansion to be relevant at this time. As a result, Ukraine’s entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a feasible or likely option for the foreseeable future.
-Trump recently proposed a move: continued aid in exchange for rare earth metals. However, according to Forbes magazine, more than 70% of the reserves are located in the territory that is currently under the control of the Russian Armed Forces. The question arises - will Trump be content with the remaining part of Ukraine's resources or will it be possible to return most of the deposits to Ukraine's control by pressuring Russia?
-A deal between the United States and Ukraine, in which Ukraine provides valuable mined minerals in exchange for continued military aid, may be possible, but there are no guarantees. The outcome will depend on how the territorial demarcation is determined, how negotiations unfold, and the administration’s overall stance on providing assistance for the war in Ukraine. At present, it appears that the administration and its allies in Congress are less inclined to continue funding the war. However, this must be balanced against the pro-Ukraine constituency within Congress and among European allies who have influence within Trump’s circle.
- Trump's proposal to resettle Palestinians and transfer the gas strip to US control came as a bolt from the blue. Given that Trump's idea has not found support among the Arab states, do you think that Israel will resume hostilities in the Gaza Strip in the near future? And what is your view on the outcome of another Palestinian-Israeli war?
-Though President Trump declared this radical departure from traditional United States Middle East policy and reiterated this proposal on February 9th, it does not appear to be a viable option for the Palestinians, for neighboring states such as Egypt or Jordan that would be expected to accept Palestinian refugees, for the regional power Saudi Arabia, or for the Trump Administration itself. The logistics of relocating and resettling two million people would be nearly impossible to implement.
Neighboring countries, the Gulf states, and the broader international community are opposed to the proposal. Additionally, American public opinion would not support deploying troops to Gaza to take control of the territory from Israel after the conflict ends, nor would it favor spending billions of dollars on such a project. Trump also risks losing part of his political support base, particularly those to whom he promised to end wars and reduce foreign military involvement.
Nevertheless, the administration has made it clear that Trump has lost patience with Hamas and seeks new leadership in Gaza. He wants this leadership to implement meaningful economic and social reforms for the Palestinian population in the territory.
-After the massacre of USAID, Trump decided to improve the bureaucracy and fire the CIA employees. Why is Trump so persistently smashing the US "deep state"?
-The dramatic and hurried closing of the United States Agency for International Development has caused significant concern both in Washington and around the world. United States courts have placed an injunction on the layoffs of agency personnel at least until February 14th. The Department of State is currently reviewing the agency’s programs and plans to incorporate them into its operations.
Many officials within the Department of State, as well as members of Congress from both the Democratic and Republican parties, recognize the importance of these programs for the United States' global influence and diplomacy. They want key initiatives—such as those aimed at combating drug trafficking, promoting democracy, and strengthening the rule of law—to continue.
Over the next few months, it is likely that a compromise will be reached to preserve most of these essential programs. This could involve integrating them into the Department of State or potentially creating a new entity under a different name to manage programs critical to the United States’ global diplomatic and strategic objectives. The future of the agency remains uncertain, and it is yet to be determined what final course of action will be taken.
-By declaring his desire to annex Greenland and Canada, Trump is breaking all the rules. How should we treat such statements? Is this just rhetoric or could there be a real foreign policy doctrine behind it?
-I believe that President Trump’s statements regarding Greenland and Canada should be understood as negotiating positions of the new administration. They should be viewed in the same context as the administration’s proposed tariffs on the United States' largest trading partners—Canada, Mexico, and China.
In the case of Greenland, the United States seeks unrestricted access to the territory as it confronts strategic challenges posed by China and Russia in the Arctic. The same applies to Canada. Similarly, Trump’s statement about Panama—along with Secretary of State Rubio’s visit to the country—serves as a warning that the United States expects Panama to limit concessions to foreign competitors, particularly China.
Denmark, which holds sovereignty over Greenland as a semi-autonomous territory, and Canada are both close allies of the United States, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and have a long history of friendly relations with the United States. Trump is essentially drawing early red lines in his administration, not only with geopolitical rivals such as China but also with traditional allies.
The broader message is that both allies and adversaries must recognize that the United States’ approach to the global order, along with its commitment to political, economic, and security institutions, will shift under Trump. However, it is highly unlikely that the sovereignty of Canada or Greenland will be diminished by the United States, as such actions would weaken the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Western alliance as a whole.
-Time magazine put Elon Musk in the US presidential chair on its cover. And the American billionaire himself is showing unusual activity in the political sphere. Why is Musk getting involved in politics and what, in your opinion, awaits him?
-Elon Musk, the world's richest man, contributed nearly $300 million to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and now enjoys significant access to the president. He has been appointed to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, tasked with identifying and eliminating government waste within American institutions. While Musk is currently one of the most influential advisers to the administration, the rapid pace at which he is pursuing government reform is likely to generate resistance from members of Congress and other key stakeholders in the coming months.
Even Republican lawmakers have voiced concerns about the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development and its impact on the country’s global influence. At the same time, Musk, who was born outside of the United States, is constitutionally ineligible to run for the presidency because he was not born in the country.
In the political arena, Musk appears to be pursuing personal political initiatives that align with his right-wing views. He played a key role in Republican political attacks against Vice President Kamala Harris and has seemingly influenced Trump’s criticism of land redistribution legislation in South Africa. Additionally, Musk’s involvement in British and German politics reflects his personal agenda and his admiration for right-wing parties, particularly the Reform Party in the United Kingdom and Alternative for Germany in Germany.
What remains to be seen, and what is likely to receive increasing attention in the coming months, is how Musk navigates his extensive economic interests in China and his close ties with Chinese leaders while balancing the Trump administration’s more confrontational and aggressive economic policies toward China.
— How will U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus change under the Trump administration compared to Biden’s course?
- U.S. policy in the Caucasus is unlikely to undergo significant changes under President Trump’s administration. Washington will likely maintain its previous course, aimed at ensuring stability in the region, fostering diplomatic engagement, and supporting peaceful conflict resolution. However, it should be noted that, as in his previous term, President Trump will primarily focus on domestic policy and addressing internal socio-economic issues. As a result, his direct involvement in foreign policy matters, including the situation in the Caucasus, may be limited, and U.S. initiatives in the region could become more restrained. Nonetheless, the overall strategy of American diplomacy—supporting allies and advancing U.S. interests—will remain unchanged.
— What position might the U.S. take in the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan under President Trump?
-The United States will undoubtedly continue to support any peace initiatives and negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Washington consistently advocates for diplomatic conflict resolution and regional stabilization. During his previous term, President Trump emphasized the importance of ending armed conflicts and achieving peaceful settlements worldwide. In this context, the U.S. is prepared to contribute to international efforts aimed at achieving lasting peace and strengthening stability in the South Caucasus.
— Will the new Trump administration support the provisions of the Strategic Partnership Charter signed between the U.S. and Armenia a week before his inauguration?
- The United States signed the Charter with Armenia, demonstrating its commitment to strengthening bilateral relations and cooperation. However, the foreign policy of President Trump’s new administration regarding various global regions remains somewhat undefined. Nevertheless, at this stage, the U.S. is likely to uphold previously signed agreements and international commitments that contribute to stability and partnerships with other nations. Moving forward, Washington’s foreign policy course may be further clarified in response to evolving geopolitical conditions and national interests.