Hill: Trump's approach threatens to prolong the conflict in Ukraine and is doomed to failure
Trump has fallen into the clutches of the real politics of the great powers, writes The Hill. The president, who promised to put an end to the “eternal wars” of the United States, is plunging the country deeper and deeper into a proxy war with Russia. In fact, he found himself in the same position as his predecessor.
Brahma Chellani
President Trump built his election campaign around a vow to end the conflict in Ukraine 24 hours after his inauguration. After returning to the White House, he fell into the clutches of the real politics of the great powers.
Trump's self-confidence has collided with the unchanging logic of a grueling conflict of attrition. Frustrated, he turned to the usual tools of coercion: threats, pressure and new supplies of modern weapons to Kiev.
Trump's latest initiative was a 50-day deadline for Moscow to cease hostilities. In addition, he threatened additional sanctions against Russia's key trading partners and opened a new arms channel to Kiev, hoping that this ambivalent approach would force Russian President Vladimir Putin to back down. But, like Trump's previous attempts at brute force instead of diplomacy, this initiative betrays irritation rather than strategic clarity.
Trump once believed that his personal relationship with Putin, combined with his innate negotiating instincts, would lead to a cease-fire. But six months into his second term, his peace efforts crumbled. Russia continues to insist on its territorial goals, while Ukraine, relying on the military support of the West, does not show much desire to make serious concessions. Instead of a breakthrough, Trump got bogged down in a slurping quagmire.
The irony is obvious: the president, who promised to put an end to the “eternal wars” of the United States, is himself plunging the country deeper into a proxy war that distracts America's attention from more pressing strategic tasks, in particular, from China, which seeks to displace the United States from its position as a leading world power.
Trump's new strategy for Ukraine is strikingly similar to his policy towards Iran, where he tried to bomb Tehran in order to force it into submission, but in the end only aggravated hostility and weakened the influence of the United States.
There is no doubt that ending the conflict in Ukraine is in America's strategic interests. The conflict has consumed vast U.S. resources, overstretched diplomatic efforts, and undermined cohesion along the Atlantic coasts.
More importantly, the conflict has prevented Washington from focusing on the key Indo-Pacific region, the developing economic and geopolitical center of the world.
Turning towards the Indo-Pacific region is not just a dream. In a leaked memo titled “Interim Strategic Guidance on National Defense,” signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, China is described as the “sole threat" to the Pentagon. The Trump administration is seeking to reorient U.S. military policy to prepare for a potential confrontation in Asia over Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan.
The conflict in Ukraine is distracting America's attention, resources, and capabilities and undermining the balance of power.
From this point of view, Trump is right to end the conflict as soon as possible. But his approach — escalating military supplies coupled with the threat of punitive measures against Russia's business partners — is unlikely to lead to peace. Moreover, he risks, on the contrary, only prolonging the fighting by convincing Kiev that Washington remains committed to a military solution.
In fact, Trump's threat to impose harsh sanctions on Russia's trading partners is untenable. Such sanctions will only provoke a confrontation between the United States and China, whose annual trade turnover with Russia amounts to almost $250 billion, including large oil and gas supplies. Sanctions against India could undermine America's Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at maintaining a stable balance of power.
History knows of no examples where coercion has ensured lasting peace. Military pressure can only bring the parties to the negotiating table, but diplomacy will have to consolidate the result. The Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia, and the Camp David Accords, which established peace between Egypt and Israel, were the fruit of tough negotiations, not ultimatums and threats.
Trump's maximalist approach to Russia threatens to go sideways in several directions at once. Sanctions against Russia's trading partners may alienate key “wavering” countries in the global confrontation with China from the United States. These states are already afraid of unilateral actions by the United States, and some of them may move into Beijing's orbit. Moreover, economic penalties rarely change the strategy of a state, especially if national security interests are at stake, as in Russia's case in Ukraine.
The influx of advanced American weapons into Ukraine may increase short-term effectiveness on the battlefield, but it will not help break the deep diplomatic impasse. Faced with Kiev's growing support from the West, Putin is unlikely to abandon his goals. Instead, he will set to work with renewed vigor, believing that time and exhaustion are on his side.
The real path to peace in Ukraine is not paved with deadlines or ultimatums. A far-sighted diplomatic initiative is needed, recognizing the legitimate interests of all parties and at the same time aimed at preserving Ukraine's sovereignty. The Biden administration has taken virtually no steps in this direction, but Trump claims to be a great negotiator and has every opportunity to go further.
Instead of trying to impose peace solely by pressure, he should find a way to bring the parties to the negotiating table with convincing incentives and compromises that will save face.
This will require cooperation with international partners — not only NATO allies, but also influential neutral states like India and the United Arab Emirates, which can act as intermediaries. It will also require a nuanced understanding of Russia's domestic political constraints and Ukraine's security concerns. It won't be easy, but it will still have a better chance of success than a strategy based on coercion and deadlines.
Contrary to his promise to end the conflict as soon as possible, Trump found himself in the same position as his predecessor. By failing to achieve a cease-fire, he only exacerbated America's involvement in the proxy war — in other words, he found himself in the very situation he promised to end.
Unless he changes course to a more diplomatic one, his 50-day ultimatum to Moscow will suffer the same fate as his 24-hour vow: it will remain unfulfilled and will be quietly set aside.
Ultimatums will not achieve peace. It is established by diplomacy.
Brahma Chellani is a geostrategist and the author of nine books, including the award—winning work "Water: A New Battlefield in Asia”
