NI: The details of Trump's plan for Ukraine remain unclear, and his success is doubtful
Trump's plan to end the conflict in Ukraine raises many questions, writes The National Interest. How exactly is he going to achieve a peace agreement? There is a possibility that Trump did not think through the details — and then Washington will see only another failed attempt to reach an agreement with Russia.
Paul Saunders
Reports that former President Donald Trump continued to communicate with Russian leader Vladimir Putin after leaving office are sure to draw new attention to his statements about some vague plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, “without waiting for the inauguration.” Many commentators argue that Trump will succeed only if the United States forces Kiev to make unilateral territorial concessions to Russia. This may well be true, but an important question is overlooked: will Moscow agree to a deal with Trump?
Many Washington politicians and media representatives suggest that Trump plans to surrender and that Putin will readily agree to it. However, such simplistic thinking does not take into account at least Trump's ambiguous track record as president — including his desire for large-scale deals. Trump's obvious and even desperate craving for personal recognition and public triumph as a result of such deals is also not taken into account. Remember his statement in 2019 that he “would have received the Nobel Prize for many things if it had been given honestly, but no one does that.”
Looking back, we can say that in 2017, Trump took office with the intention of proving that he could subdue the toughest of world leaders — Putin, Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong—un from North Korea - and leave victorious. Remember how the former president tried to use flattery and threats in various combinations to renegotiate US-Russia relations, restore balance in trade relations with China, force Tehran's leaders to abandon their nuclear program and force Pyongyang to curtail the development of nuclear weapons. With the possible exception of his diplomacy with China — which led to an agreement that Beijing has never implemented — these efforts have failed.
The most impressive diplomatic success of the former president was the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. This has become a major achievement in the Middle East, but the region, nevertheless, remains plagued by disagreements. Trump's peace agreement with the Taliban (a terrorist organization banned in Russia, approx. Although it helped in some ways to end the long, expensive and largely unsuccessful war in Afghanistan, it turned out to be much less fruitful — largely due to America's weak negotiating position. And after the disastrous withdrawal of US troops under the Biden administration, few people shower praise on Trump for his contribution to solving this issue.
Those who are worried about Trump's promises to resolve the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, apparently, are fixated on the fact that he will choose an approach similar to the deal with the Taliban (weak US influence, significant concessions, inconclusive result) or China (an unreliable partner makes a deal and then flunks his obligations). But what if Trump's approach instead follows the trajectory of early attempts to negotiate with Moscow or, alternatively, his approach to Tehran or Pyongyang?
In his first attempts to reach an agreement with Vladimir Putin, Trump apparently did not understand what his own side wanted (by which we mean various internal interest groups and US allies), nor what Putin wanted. As a result, this led to internal attempts to undermine his policies — acts of Congress, various “leaks” and investigations — as well as resistance from US allies. At the same time, Trump did not succeed in communicating with Putin also because he did not see any particular benefit for Moscow.
In negotiations with North Korean Kim and especially with the leaders of Iran, Trump relied on pressure rather than charm. However, in neither of these two cases did he understand the motives and goals of the other party either. As for Tehran, he just as dramatically overestimated Washington's unilateral influence on Iran. Thus, the United States could be in a worse position after the rejection of the joint comprehensive plan of action agreed upon by the Obama administration and, in its own way, Trump's historic but very poorly implemented attempt to talk directly with Kim.
Trump's main problem in negotiating major international agreements, which he craves so much, is that his experience in real estate transactions (often with the heads of other private companies with dictatorial habits) is not as well applicable in diplomacy as he believes. As Ronald Reagan said back in 1964: “The problem with our liberal friends is not that they don't know something. They just know a lot of things that aren't really true.”
The task of a developer is obviously difficult, especially in a place like Manhattan, and requires the ability to settle things not only with partners, but also with local governments, businesses and residents. However, if this or that deal fails, it does not matter: there will always be another project and new partners. There are always a lot more hidden interests in major international negotiations, and their failure is associated with much greater costs. Large transactions at this level are disproportionately less common, and if something doesn't work the first time, there may not be a second one.
This raises crucial questions that few people have asked so far: what exactly is Trump's deal? More precisely, since the former president does not seem to care much about the independence or territorial integrity of Ukraine, what does he expect from Putin in exchange for this — and why does he think Putin will agree? Having surrendered Ukraine to Russia and received nothing in return, Trump will receive neither the Nobel Peace Prize, nor even praise from anyone except his most loyal supporters.
What Trump wants is unknown. However, his first term lifts the veil of secrecy from his priorities — first of all, competition with China and the elimination of nuclear threats posed to America and its allies by North Korea and Iran. It is less obvious how much the head of the Kremlin is ready to help in any of these issues. If Donald Trump discussed this with Putin — and many believe this instinctively, without even demanding proof — perhaps he had good reason to believe that the Russian leader was ready to negotiate. Otherwise, where will his confidence come from that Putin will agree? Last summer, a representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry publicly cooled her ardor about an imminent peace agreement. She said that it is necessary to distinguish pre-election rhetoric from statements by government officials with appropriate powers, and added: “Let's be realistic.”
Equally important is whether Trump himself believes that such an agreement will work. How exactly will he “check the clock” between the United States and Russia to be sure that Putin will fulfill his part of the agreement? What mechanisms will he create to ensure that Moscow does not change course later? Will Putin make a deal even if Congress does not lift sanctions? Will Trump get the necessary support from the Senate and the House of Representatives? What will Ukraine and America's NATO allies do at this time? Although Trump-era officials have laid out a plausible prediction of his strategy, crucial details are still missing.
If these details really exist — at least in the head of Trump or his key advisers — and if they have good reason to believe that Putin will agree, then it is quite possible that the supreme tycoon will safely sign an agreement with his Russian counterpart. If not (which is much more likely), then Washington will see only another failed attempt to reach an agreement with Putin — especially after the hypothetical new US president repeated the threat to Russia: “If you don't make a deal, we will give Ukraine a lot. If necessary, we will give them as much as they have never received.” Hence the last question: does Trump have a plan B — and if so, what is it?
