Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst said a Russian video showing the deployment of its nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile system in Belarus is best understood as part of Moscow’s broader messaging effort rather than a genuine military escalation.
Herbst said the dramatic footage — released alongside Moscow’s unsubstantiated claim that Ukrainian drones attacked one of Vladimir Putin’s residences — served to construct a narrative that could justify Russia’s resistance to an emerging U.S.-Ukraine peace framework without directly challenging President Trump.
Russia’s announcements were made Monday and Tuesday, after the Sunday meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a session Herbst described as producing meaningful movement toward a common U.S.-Ukrainian negotiating position.
He said that President Zelenskyy had signaled a willingness to consider territorial concessions in western Donbas under conditions that included reciprocal Russian withdrawals, the establishment of a demilitarized zone, the presence of credible international peacekeeping forces, and firm security guarantees. Herbst also noted that the Trump administration appears more open to long-term security guarantees for Ukraine than it was earlier this year.
Herbst discussed how U.S. security guarantees would differ from the Budapest Memorandum. He emphasized that legally binding guarantees, potentially ratified by the U.S. Senate and backed by enforceable commitments — including military response options — would mark a fundamental departure from nonbinding assurances.
Reflecting on the United States’ approach to Russia, Herbst described a cycle in which the Trump administration applies pressure on the Kremlin and then relaxes it. He warned that without sustained and coordinated pressure — including sanctions, continued military support for Ukraine, and the use of frozen Russian assets to stabilize Ukraine’s economy — any peace effort is likely to stall. A durable settlement, he concluded, would require months of consistent Western resolve to convince Moscow that further territorial gains are unattainable.
The following interview, recorded Tuesday, has been edited for length and clarity.
Kartlos Sharashenidze, Independence Avenue Media: Let me start with Russia releasing video on Tuesday of what it said was the deployment of its nuclear-capable hypersonic Oreshnik missile system in Belarus — missiles that can reach much of Europe. How do you read that move?
John Herbst, Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine: This is a part of the “Kabuki theater” regarding Russia’s desire not to say yes to the proposal that’s coming from Trump after his conversations with Zelenskyy and having an excuse that will not annoy Trump.
So, the dramatic footage of the Oreshnik is presented as a response to the alleged attack on Putin’s residence — one of his many residences, one in Valdai — by Ukrainian drones, for which there is zero evidence. And there’s some evidence that this is completely bogus.
You’ve probably heard of [Russian independent news outlet] Sota. Russian journalists would say they have people there, and there were no sounds in the night of air raid sirens or of missiles being launched to knock down incoming drones, and the Institute for the Study of War also says there’s zero evidence.
So, Putin was going to say no to the Trump proposal, and he wanted to do it in a way that would not annoy Trump. And so they jigged up this baloney about the attack on his residence, and they had to revise their negotiating positions. And that’s what this is all about.
IAM: You mentioned that Moscow’s claim came right after the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting at Mar-a-Lago, right? Do you think these kinds of claims and messaging from Moscow are effective with the Trump administration in this peace process?
Herbst: I think the Russians are shouting with glee that Trump seems to have endorsed it. I say “seems to” because the language was not precise, but the language does support the notion that he had bought this nonsense.
IAM: Before this claim from Moscow, what was your read on the Mar-a-Lago meeting? Did you see any positive signs?
Herbst: Well, in terms of reaching a common U.S.-Ukrainian position, the answer is yes. Zelenskyy made a big concession saying that he’d be willing to consider moving Ukrainian forces back from western Donbas if there’s this demilitarized zone established and Russian forces also move the same distance back from the current lines they occupy. And also, that there’d be international peacekeepers there — not feckless troops from the U.N. authority; [there would] have to be something serious like European forces — and also a security guarantee.
And Trump made a significant concession. He’s tried to avoid security guarantees, at least at the very beginning. That was one of the reasons why Trump got mad in the Oval Office in February. And while we’ve been negotiating on security guarantees since the European leaders came to the White House in the middle of August, not too much progress had been achieved on the U.S. side.
Suddenly, though, major, major concessions from the White House. So, I think the Russians were not too keen about all this. And that’s why they dreamed up this phony attack.
IAM: You mentioned security guarantees. President Zelenskyy says the U.S. is offering 15-year security guarantees. What would make these guarantees more enforceable than the Budapest Memorandum?
Herbst: The Budapest Memorandum offered assurances, which are something not legally binding. If you’re talking about guarantees, that normally involves a legal commitment.
The administration has indicated that this could be ratified by the Senate. And that also suggests that it really is a guarantee. And if you have a commitment to respond in all ways, including militarily, if Moscow were to break ceasefire, then in theory, they’re committed to stopping the Russians.
Now no one I know is talking about putting American soldiers right there, but that was never in play. But European soldiers there, the American Air Force backing up European soldiers, that could work.
IAM: Was it a surprise for you to see these kinds of guarantees on the table?
Herbst: I think actually Ukraine giving up western Donbas is a serious mistake because the Russians have been unable to conquer that area. But if they got an ironclad security guarantee from the United States in exchange, that could make it worth it.
Although why the U.S. would want to give a security guarantee when they’re telling Ukraine to give up easily defensible positions — the answer to that is not quite clear.
IAM: When we spoke last time in October, you described how President Trump would pressure the Russian president, then back off. Is this the same cycle? Has anything changed?
Herbst: This continues. When did we speak in October?
IAM: At the end of October.
Herbst: Right. So, at that point we had seen first, of course, the putting down of the sanctions on [Russian oil companies] Rosneft and Lukoil, which was excellent. And then we saw the dispatch of [Russian sovereign wealth fund chief Kirill] Dmitriev to [Trump special envoy Steve] Witkoff in Florida. But by the time we were speaking, it wasn’t quite clear how that was going to go. And when we learned about the 28-point plan, which came out of those talks between Dmitriev and Witkoff, we realized how bad they were. And so, at that point, the Trump team was moving in the opposite direction of pressure on Russia.
But of course, those 28 points were then pretty quickly thrown away when [U.S. Secretary of State Marco] Rubio met with the Ukrainians in Geneva a few days after the secretary of the army, [Dan] Driscoll, delivered the 28 points to Zelenskyy.
IAM: What outcome do you think is most likely at this point? What do you see?
Herbst: If Trump presents the document that the U.S. and Ukraine have worked on and [asks] for a Russian reaction, I consider that a positive.
If he lets the Russians use this bogus story of the attack on Zelenskyy to change their position and say, “We can’t accept it,” then Trump is not moving closer to a peace deal. He’s delaying a peace deal.
This is part of the pattern we’ve seen since he came into office in January. He heads in the right direction, but then he backs off. If we’re going to have peace, a durable peace, which is Trump’s stated goal, then there’s going to have to be months of heavy pressure on the Kremlin, sanctions, weapons to Ukraine, and making sure Ukraine gets all those frozen assets to sustain their economy for years to come.
[If you] do all those things over eight or 10 months, Putin may begin to realize he’s not going to be able to get any more Ukrainian territory. But you’ll need an effort at least of that length and of that strength, but probably longer.
IAM: You mentioned Donbas, and President Zelenskyy said it would take a referendum to ask the Ukrainian people about it. What do you think about a referendum? And there was also a conversation about a presidential election. We saw the argument that you cannot have elections when there is an ongoing war in the country. So, what about a referendum in this case?
Herbst: Zelenskyy mentioned [a referendum] to the Trump team weeks ago, and they took that as his willingness to consider the issue of western Donbas. And they were right to see it that way. Zelenskyy is right to say if Ukraine’s going to do that, the Ukrainian people have to decide, not he himself, for reasons of political legitimacy.
But I don’t think we’re going to get to that point anytime soon, because the Russians do not want to have U.S. security guarantees ratified by the Senate in play.
