\n<\/p>\n
On the day of Donald Trump\u2019s second inauguration, an air raid was in effect in Odesa for much of the afternoon. People went about their business. Street vendors continued selling coffee. Trams kept running. At Pryvoz, the mammoth farmers\u2019 (and everything else) market, electricity went out for a while, but that seemed to have no effect on the pace of commerce; if it was slow, that was because it was a Monday. In the two years and 11 months since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Odesa has gone through stages: months of shock and fear, followed by something akin to denial and, finally, adaptation.<\/p>\n
Odesa is one of those cities \u2014 like, say, New Orleans \u2014 possessed of a distinct personality, a mythology of itself that fuels a fierce and joyful kind of patriotism. Odesa is rightfully proud of its sea views, its architecture, its food, its multiculturalism, its entrepreneurship and its libertine spirit, but its singular distinction is the well-turned phrase, the unsparingly hilarious joke.<\/p>\n
Hanna Shelest, a military analyst, made one of those remarks early on in the war. As she recalled, not long after Russia invaded, an Italian journalist asked her \u2014 in that way that male journalists \u201cask\u201d female experts they are interviewing while actually telling them what to think \u2014 \u201cYou do realize that you are going to have to give Vladimir Putin something?\u201d Shelest paused and said, \u201cYou are right. We\u2019ll give him Lake Como.\u201d It was a perfect way of pointing out the absurdity of the premise, that Ukraine owed Putin something just because he wanted it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
I asked Shelest to watch Trump\u2019s inauguration with me. We used the TV in my hotel room. Shelest, who is 43, and her parents, who are both 65, have been living in a borrowed apartment since a Russian drone hit their building on Nov. 14 of last year. She had just finished an on-air interview with a French television channel when she heard a soft boom, and then the chandelier in her study fell to the floor, just missing her mother. It took them all a few minutes to realize that some of the rooms in their apartment were in ruins, and the apartment next door was in flames. Still, they were lucky: The drone didn\u2019t explode. In the days that followed, after the fire had been put out, Shelest and her mother used a fire truck\u2019s lift to get into their apartment through a window to salvage some clothes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\u201cThat was kind of odd,\u201d Shelest said when Trump finished his speech. \u201cI am confused by the emphasis on sovereignty. Is anyone threatening the sovereignty of the United States? It\u2019s particularly odd watching this from Ukraine, where we are actually fighting for our sovereignty. It has a way of diminishing our struggle.\u201d She was a little surprised that Trump didn\u2019t mention Ukraine, though he had previously promised to end the Russian-Ukrainian war within 24 hours. One might assume that Trump was referring to Ukraine when he complained that the Biden administration had \u201cgiven unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders.\u201d She said a probably unintended effect of not mentioning Ukraine by name was that Japan and Taiwan, for example, as well as military contractors, were put on notice. \u201cAnd Panama!\u201d she added. \u201cWhat did calm, peaceful Panama do?\u201d<\/p>\n
To me, all of this sounded familiar. As Russia\u2019s president, <\/span>Putin spent many years trafficking in imagined grievances and illusory threats to Russian sovereignty. As it often has been in history, this language was a prelude to launching his ruthless wars. Even Trump\u2019s language about the Panama Canal, which he called a \u201cfoolish gift that should have never been made,\u201d was a direct reprise of Putin\u2019s statements on Crimea, which he repeatedly described as having been a gift to Ukraine from Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s. As is his way, Trump is moving faster than his role model. No sooner had he introduced the idea of wounded sovereignty than he promised that \u201cthe United States will once again consider itself a growing nation \u2014 one that increases our wealth, expands our territory.\u201d Totalitarian leaders, leaders who want to stay in power forever, undertake expansionist wars.<\/p>\n This axiom of totalitarianism makes it unlikely that Trump will be able to deliver on his promise to end the war in Ukraine. Putin needs this war.<\/p>\n Putin also wants a summit with Trump, which appears to be on track to happen this year. A meeting with the U.S. president would signal an end to the period of international isolation Russia entered after it invaded Ukraine in February 2022.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n A meeting with Trump would not only show Russians \u2014 and the rest of the world \u2014 that Putin is once again a legitimate voice in the world; it would also give him what he has long demanded: a conversation about the fate of Ukraine that does not include Ukraine. In the week before Trump\u2019s inauguration, some high-level Russian officials made aggressive statements indicating that Ukraine shouldn\u2019t exist at all.<\/p>\n For most of the past three years, the Kremlin has either flat-out refused to enter talks on an end to the war or made demands for territory that far exceeded what Russia had been able to occupy. If any talks happen, Shelest said, Russia will be interested not in finding a sustainable solution but just in maximizing its own position.<\/p>\n But Shelest hopes that Putin will overplay his hand. He is well on his way. Last month a Russian oligarch and Putin booster told The Financial Times that Russia would merely make a show of reviewing Trump\u2019s peace plan for Ukraine, then reject it. (In response, the Trump adviser Keith Kellogg, appearing on Fox News, mysteriously directed the oligarch to \u201cget back in your box.\u201d) In the past, Putin has sometimes indicated that he has a low opinion of Trump\u2019s intelligence. \u201cHe may be tempted to humiliate Trump, to put him in his place,\u201d Shelest said.<\/p>\n Could that get Trump\u2019s ire up? \u201cMaybe he will decide that he wants to be a victor,\u201d Shelest said. Maybe he will give Ukraine what the Biden administration has held back: enough military resources and the freedom to use them to really hurt Russia. It\u2019s a hell of a thing to see Trump\u2019s propensity to act out of spite as your country\u2019s best hope.<\/p>\n An hour after Shelest left my hotel room, the air raid siren went off again.<\/p>\n M. Gessen is an Opinion columnist for The Times. They won a George Polk Award for opinion writing in 2024. They are the author of \u201cThe Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia,\u201d which won the National Book Award in 2017, and other books.<\/p>\n The Times is committed to publishing <\/em>a diversity of letters<\/em><\/a> to the editor. We\u2019d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some <\/em>tips<\/em><\/a>. And here\u2019s our email: <\/em>letters@nytimes.com<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Follow the New York Times Opinion section on <\/em>Facebook<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Instagram<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>TikTok<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>WhatsApp<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>X<\/em><\/a> and <\/em>Threads<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n