Reality Sets In: What Can Trump Do On Russia and Global order?
The quick resolution to the war in Ukraine promised by the U.S. president appears increasingly unlikely. Nor could anyone realistically expect a “magic wand” solution to the entrenched issues within the aggressor state. However, given recent statements from Putin and Lavrov, it is worth considering which elements of Trump’s team’s promises might still hold potential.
Russia’s Reluctance to Change
Putin and Lavrov have made their intentions clear: Russia has no plans to moderate its ambitions or allow Ukraine to remain an independent state with its own identity and policies. For those familiar with Russian history, this is unsurprising.
For Putin—and Russia’s imperial vision—domination over Ukraine is essential. Kyiv represents Rus, the cradle of Russian spirituality. Moscow, despite its symbolic importance, has never been the undisputed center of Russian identity. Historically, Russia thrived with St. Petersburg as its capital, linking Russia to Europe spiritually and politically.
Today, Putin is dragging Russia back toward Asia, obsessed with subjugating Ukraine because he lacks the spiritual and ideological tools to integrate his rule into Russia’s Tsarist tradition. This obsession highlights the deep divide between revanchist imperial Russia and European nations that have moved past imperial ambitions.
A review of Russian governance history shows brief periods of relative liberalism—under Stolypin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev-Yeltsin—but they amount to less than 20 years over a century. In contrast, decades of dictatorship dominate. This pattern of repression, both at home and abroad, should inform the West’s long-term strategy for dealing with the Kremlin.
Even if Putin’s regime survives the war, it is unlikely to usher in liberal reforms or foster peaceful coexistence with the West.
No Lasting Peace Under Putin’s Rule
Given the Kremlin’s trajectory, a lasting resolution to the war and peaceful coexistence between Russia, Europe, and Ukraine seems unlikely while Putin remains in power. Putin cannot revert to civilian governance or rebuild trust with Europe and the West. He has crossed too many red lines and made clear that his ambitions extend beyond Ukraine to subdue the West itself.
Support Independent Analysis
Help us keep delivering free, unbiased, and in-depth insights by supporting our work. Your donation ensures we stay independent, transparent, and accessible to all. Join us in preserving thoughtful analysis—donate today!
The resources required to tame Putin as a precondition for lasting peace without Ukraine far exceed those needed if Ukraine remains at the forefront. In fact, Ukraine’s strategic value, demonstrated by its ability to resist and contain Russia, has surpassed anything offered by leaders like Orbán or Fico. These figures are irrelevant assets to NATO when it comes to countering Putin, as their utility lies in offering proxy services and subduing to Moscow’s interests.
The militarization of Russian society and the revival of imperialism have become central to Putin’s political survival, making aggression—domestic and foreign—indispensable. A deeper look into Russia’s defense industry shows that it is unable to replace lost weaponry and sustain the war beyond 2025. This reality is forcing the Russian elite to focus on militarization and anti-Western propaganda to cover up their deficiencies.
Economic Realities and Wartime Economy
Russia’s economic challenges are intensifying. Putin’s refusal to allow the Central Bank of Russia to implement inflation-controlling measures has left the country trapped in a wartime command economy. Attacks on Central Bank Chief Nabiullina by oligarchs and defense industry circles reveal the regime’s frailty in trying to balance growth during wartime and control inflation.
Militarization has become essential for the Kremlin’s survival, pushing market logic aside in favor of wartime decision-making at the Kremlin and in corporate and security circles.
The Peace Formula: Trump’s Leaked Plans
If a peace deal were to materialize, what might it look like? The cessation of hostilities must lead to a sustainable state of non-war. However, Russia cannot credibly guarantee peace, as evidenced by its violation of the Budapest Memorandum and continued aggression.
A demilitarized zone would require a robust peacekeeping force of about 100,000 troops. However, Russia would only accept a vague UN contingent, without significant NATO involvement. NATO troops, however, are the only ones with the necessary combat capabilities and security guarantees for Ukraine, creating a fundamental impasse.
Trump’s proposal for European NATO members to supply these troops without U.S. involvement is politically unrealistic. European nations are unlikely to increase defense spending to fund U.S.-centric policies and raise defense budgets to 4-5% of GDP, as Trump suggests, simply to buy U.S. weapons for their armies or for Ukraine.
Orban vs Meloni – the EU approach
The only notable exception within the European Union echoing Putin’s assault on the postwar European order is Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, whose rhetoric includes reclaiming territories lost in past world wars, primarily from Ukraine. However, Orbán remains an outlier. The key players in shaping Europe’s future direction will likely be leaders like Meloni, Macron, and possibly Merz—not Orbán or Fico. Despite theur rhetoric, Orbán and Fico have refrained from purchasing U.S. gas, oil, or nuclear technology, instead prioritizing energy deals with Russia that indirectly support Putin’s war machine. Consequently, their net value to Trump as allies are negligible. This disconnect between Orbán’s ideological posturing and economic realities may eventually compel a reevaluation of Hungary’s and Slovakia’s policies.
Ukraine’s Resolve
The idea that President Trump could impose an unacceptable peace deal on Ukraine is exaggerated. The West has historically underestimated Ukraine’s resilience, as evidenced in the early days of Russia’s invasion. Western diplomats initially advised Zelensky to flee Kyiv, underestimating Ukraine’s determination. This resolve remains unshaken.
Even if U.S. aid were cut, Ukraine would not capitulate to a peace plan favoring Putin. Ukrainian leaders have a deep understanding of their adversary and more experience defending their independence than Western policymakers or Putin’s proxies in Central and Eastern Europe.
The Path to Peace or MAGAs of the World Unite?
A simplistic peace plan, as envisioned by some Putin sympathizers, is unworkable. Lasting peace with Russia can only be achieved and retained from a position of strength—military, economic, and financial.
Russia’s mounting economic and fiscal problems are forcing tough decisions. Nabiullina has suggested seeking IMF assistance, but Putin has refused—for now. However, time is not on Moscow’s side.
Sufficient military aid to Ukraine could bring Russia to a breaking point, forcing internal collapse and compelling Putin to negotiate peace. Until then, war and uncertainty will persist.
The only scenario in which Putin might align with Trump’s endgame is if the new U.S. president leverages the war in Ukraine and global security instability to advance a distinctly MAGA-inspired imperialistic agenda—such as pursuing takeover of the Panama Canal or the annexation of Canada or Greenland. While actual actions may be tempered by U.S. Congress, the shaping of public perceptions and the normalization of such policies in mainstream discourse, both in the US and Europe, could have significant consequences.
In this context, Russia might argue it has a similar right to annex Ukraine, just as China might assert claims over Taiwan. Such a shift would signal a return to a Machiavellian world order defined by spheres of influence and raw power politics. Though the likelihood of such a “MAGA rocks the world” scenario is relatively low, it remains significant enough to warrant vigilance. This potential underscores the urgency for the EU to consolidate its autonomy in security and economic policies to navigate an increasingly turbulent global landscape.
Ilian Vassilev
