Will Donald Trump Be Able to Stop the War in Ukraine?
An Attempt at Analysis
Donald Trump’s promise to end the war in Ukraine has captured significant attention, particularly as he sends overt and subtle messages to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about the uncertain future of U.S. financial and military aid. Riding the wave of a landslide election victory and a supportive Congress, Trump has signaled confidence in his ability to reshape foreign policy. However, moving from campaign rhetoric to the realm of realpolitik brings new complexities. The central question remains: what can Trump achieve if Russian President Vladimir Putin is unwilling to halt the war without Ukraine’s complete surrender?
Trump’s Isolationist Rhetoric and Its Limits
Trump has emphasized a reduced global presence for the U.S., suggesting a pivot away from international conflicts to prioritize domestic policy. However, the realities of being a global superpower make such isolationism impractical. While autocratic regimes—such as those in Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—capitalize on perceived U.S. retreat, completely stepping back from or compromising multilateral alliances like NATO risks diminishing America’s global influence.
The challenge lies in balancing a selective foreign policy approach with the complexity of international relations. Bilateral agreements, no matter how carefully negotiated, cannot fully substitute for the broader diplomatic reach of multilateral alliances. America’s leadership in coalitions is integral to maintaining its global stature, something that a strictly isolationist agenda undermines.
Ukraine as a Strategic Litmus Test
The war in Ukraine represents more than just a regional conflict; it is a test of Western resilience. If the U.S. were to pressure Ukraine into a settlement unfavorable to its sovereignty, it would send a damaging signal to NATO and EU allies about America’s reliability. A perceived “betrayal” of Ukraine could undermine confidence in U.S. commitments across Europe, with ripple effects for other geopolitical flashpoints.
Trump’s potential strategy may involve prioritizing other threats, such as China and Iran, by expediting a resolution in Ukraine. However, imposing peace on Ukraine is no simple task. Zelensky and the Ukrainian people are unlikely to accept concessions that threaten their sovereignty or security. Similarly, most EU nations would reject a settlement that weakens Ukraine, viewing it as a precursor to broader Russian aggression in the region.
Internal Challenges and Strategic Focus
Restructuring the U.S. administration, as Trump has promised, will demand considerable time and resources, potentially limiting his ability to focus on Ukraine early in his term. A selective foreign policy, while efficient in theory, risks sidelining critical conflicts like Ukraine.
Additionally, the broader implications of the war in Ukraine make it unlikely that the U.S. can simply “close the Ukraine chapter” without undermining Western security architecture. The outcome of this war will shape the future of NATO, the EU, and the global balance of power.
Will Trump Be Able to Shift Putin’s Maximalist Position?
The central challenge for any peace plan in Ukraine lies in persuading Russian President Vladimir Putin to abandon his maximalist goals: the destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign state or its relegation to a “Georgian option” — a fractured, dependent territory. Without significant movement on this front, the failure of any peace initiative is inevitable. The gulf between what Ukraine can accept and what Russia demands is vast, and no amount of diplomacy — even backed by threats — can easily bridge this divide.
The critical question becomes whether Trump can extract meaningful concessions from Putin and compel him to accept a plan centered on two key principles: guaranteed security for Ukraine and its sovereignty within internationally recognized borders, even after maps are redrawn. These principles also encompass Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO and the EU, as multilateral formats like the Budapest Memorandum or the Minsk agreements have proven unreliable.
Constraints on Russia and Ukraine
Several factors influence the behavior of both nations, underscoring the urgency for a feasible peace plan:
- Russia’s Militarized Economy
Putin’s motivations at the war’s outset have evolved. His regime has transformed Russia into a highly militarized state, dismantling remnants of democracy and suppressing dissent to consolidate power. This militarization cannot be easily reversed, nor can the economy return to normalcy through sanctions relief alone. The lifting of sanctions, even if facilitated by Trump, would require rebuilding trust with Western nations — a process that transcends any single U.S. administration’s promises.
Moreover, Russia’s reliance on its military-industrial complex to maintain societal control complicates demilitarization. Without war as a unifying national project, the Kremlin risks losing its grip on power.
- The Need for a Comprehensive Peace Plan
A ceasefire alone cannot end the war. True resolution demands a durable peace treaty, reconstruction, and financial aid — none of which will materialize through a “magic wand.” Funding post-war reconstruction is a massive challenge, especially given Russia’s current trajectory and the West’s skepticism about reintegration.
Trump’s Potential Leverage
Trump’s approach to diplomacy is rooted in transactional negotiation, which raises questions about his leverage over Putin. To strengthen his position, Trump is likely to focus on economic pressure, particularly through the energy sector:
- Energy as a Weapon
Trump may seek to replicate Ronald Reagan’s strategy of driving down oil prices to weaken Russia. Under Reagan, oil prices plummeted below $10 per barrel, significantly undermining the Soviet Union’s economy. In contrast, under President Biden, prices have remained relatively high, often exceeding $70 per barrel, which has allowed Russia to weather sanctions by redirecting energy exports to countries like China, India, and Turkey.
Biden’s climate-focused policies, coupled with reduced emphasis on fossil fuel production, have inadvertently strengthened Moscow’s hand. A Trump administration could reverse this dynamic by ramping up U.S. fossil fuel production, increasing global supply, and driving down prices to pressure Russia economically.
- Diplomatic Uncertainty
While Trump’s unpredictability is often touted as a strength, it also introduces uncertainty. His potential alignment with figures like Vice President J.D. Vance might hint at a less conventional approach, but it remains unclear what a Trump-led peace plan would entail.
Putin’s Economic Strategy and Its Implications for Diplomacy
Putin’s ability to sustain Russia’s war in Ukraine is underpinned by robust state revenues, including from energy exports, which continue to finance his military ambitions despite Western sanctions. However, the resilience of the Russian economy is increasingly derived from domestic consumption and investment, driven by higher defense spending and increased incomes for those connected to the military-industrial complex.
This strategy comes at a significant cost. Sanctions, coupled with a shift in government priorities from social programs to war funding, have led to inflation, reduced product availability, and failures in import substitution efforts. The Bank of Russia’s attempts to counter inflation with interest rate hikes have been ineffective. Meanwhile, while Putin can print more rubles to sustain his policies, inflation gradually erodes the purchasing power of those nominal gains.
If Russia’s economic health correlates with its diplomatic leverage, Putin’s position may weaken over time, suggesting he might seek a face-saving resolution to the war. Yet, reversing the militarization of Russia’s economy — and finding a non-repressive formula for governance — is a nearly insurmountable challenge. This trajectory aligns with broader historical patterns of imperial Russia, which struggled to balance domestic stability with external ambitions.
Trump’s Leverage on Ukraine
Persuading Kyiv to accept Trump’s terms may hinge on the threat of cutting U.S. military and financial aid. This argument has some rational basis but also significant flaws. Ukraine’s resilience in February 2022 demonstrated that it can survive substantial external shocks and beat Washington’s skepticism.
Putin’s maximalist demands, such as Ukraine’s demilitarization, neutrality, and withdrawal from territories Russia claims, leave no room for Kyiv to capitulate without sacrificing sovereignty. This reality limits Trump’s ability to impose terms on Ukraine unilaterally, even with a “nuclear option” of aid withdrawal.
Domestically, withholding aid to Ukraine is fraught with risks. It could destabilize not only Ukraine but also Trump’s administration and congressional support, especially if the battlefield dynamics turn in Russia’s favor, due to Washington’s actions.
The U.S.’s alliances also hang in the balance. A perceived failure in Ukraine could trigger a loss of confidence among NATO and EU allies, undermining the broader Western security framework. This would create ripple effects across global alliances, diminishing U.S. influence.
Even a figure as dominant as Trump cannot afford the repercussions of Ukraine’s capitulation. A Ukrainian defeat would not establish a sustainable peace in Europe but would instead provoke new conflicts across the continent and beyond. Putin’s power, and modern Russia itself, are intrinsically tied to violence — both internal repression and external aggression. The militarization of Russia’s economy and society leaves no other mechanism for maintaining internal stability or achieving territorial ambitions than through war.
Despite attempts by some of Putin’s supporters in the U.S. to frame the conflict as a reaction to Ukrainian policies, Russia’s current aggression is part of a broader historical pattern, escalating violence in the post-Soviet sphere, accompanied by military threats toward other neighbors. Putin’s war is not merely about humiliating Ukraine; it aims to humiliate the U.S. and Europe by redrawing the global map in defiance of Western norms. Any notion of Trump and Putin reaching a peaceful understanding that divides the world between them is an illusion. The only way Trump could claim success from Ukraine’s loss is by portraying Putin’s gains as his own diplomatic victory.
Putin’s Strategy and Trump’s Response
Putin appears to be planning for a window of opportunity during the early days of a Trump administration, focusing on consolidating gains in the Donbas and Kursk regions. This strategy reflects an understanding that Trump would need time to establish the parameters of his Russia policy, potentially allowing Moscow to further its objectives before facing significant pushback.
On the Ukrainian side, Trump’s threat to halt arms and aid is unlikely to yield immediate results. Kyiv has already shown remarkable resilience, surviving on limited aid early in the conflict and withstanding Russian advances despite overwhelming odds. Even if Trump resorts to his “nuclear option” of cutting aid, its effects would not be instantaneous, especially if outgoing U.S. officials manage to expedite the delivery of promised weapons.
The idea of Trump weakening Zelensky’s position through indirect measures — such as encouraging political shifts in Ukraine — is fraught with risks. Zelensky has demonstrated exceptional leadership, surviving assassination attempts and rallying his people against immense challenges. Replacing him with a more pliable figure, even under Trump’s administration, would likely backfire, as any Ukrainian leader willing to cede sovereignty would face insurmountable public backlash and destabilize the nation further.
Europe’s Role and Autonomy
Trump’s unilateral attempts to impose peace terms on Ukraine might also encounter resistance from Europe. Unlike the U.S., the EU faces the Russian threat directly and has been actively reducing its dependence on Russian energy while increasing defense spending and moving toward greater strategic autonomy. For Europe, a surviving Ukraine is far more advantageous than a capitulated one.
The EU’s actions reflect a long-term strategy of safeguarding its security, which includes strengthening its own defense capacities and reducing vulnerabilities. A forced settlement on Ukraine that prioritizes U.S. interests over European security would likely accelerate Europe’s efforts to decouple from American influence in military matters, fostering a more autonomous defense strategy.
In conclusion, Trump’s capacity to enforce a peace deal on Ukraine depends on navigating a complex web of domestic, international, and historical factors. While his transactional diplomacy might offer unique opportunities to pressure both sides, the constraints on both Putin and Zelensky suggest that an imposed settlement is neither feasible nor sustainable.
Europe’s strategic priorities and its direct exposure to Russian aggression will further complicate Trump’s ambitions. Any misstep risks undermining U.S. influence in the transatlantic alliance and could lead to greater instability, making it clear that no actor — not Trump, not Putin — can unilaterally determine Ukraine’s future.
