By Tom Fowdy
When Donald Trump was elected a second time as President of the United States, he famously boasted that he could end Russia's war in Ukraine "in a day," and signalled that it would be the first foreign policy priority of his presidency to do so. As of this week, we are now passed the third month of his term. Although peace talks have taken place, yielding some small results, such as no further attacks on energy infrastructure, for all intents and purposes the bigger picture is shifting nowhere as Putin continues to bomb Ukrainian cities and both sides make it abundantly clear that the kind of "peace" America is offering is not the kind of peace they want at all.
Two days ago, Ukraine abruptly aborted some talks scheduled in London after openly objecting to Trump's peace plan, which sought to grant formal recognition of Crimea as Russian. Ukraine's Zelensky has since gone on a rhetorical offensive, doubling down on the fact that they cannot accept territorial concessions under any circumstances. This hardline position comes despite the fact that Russia already occupies a swathe of the country, and moreover, Kyiv has failed to liberate its territory in past counteroffensives.
Such thinking is endemic of the fanatical nationalism that dominates Ukraine's leadership, a factor which Russia argues was instrumental in provoking the invasion in the first place, and of course has been emboldened by the unconditional backing of the past Biden administration, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe, who sold them a pipe dream in 2022 that Ukraine could be supported towards winning the conflict on its own terms, allowing it to join the EU and NATO. Indeed, Ukraine sees the conflict as a war of national liberation against its historical affiliations with Russia, and therefore, concessions have always been non-negotiable.
While Biden is now gone, and Trump is a spanner in the works for Kyiv, Britain and other European nations have subsequently worked to bolster this "Non-negotiable" position through diplomatic postures such as stating "we will make a peacekeeping force in Ukraine" after the conflict ends, attempting to turn a ceasefire into a de-facto "defeat" for Putin by forcing a NATO military presence into Kyiv anyway, regardless of its membership. This kind of sabotage diplomacy subsequently bolsters Ukraine's defiance, even if it cannot regain its territory under any circumstances.
It therefore goes without saying on the back of this defiance to end the war is paramount to ending the war is paramount in Moscow too. While Russia has feigned an interest in talks and peace, it is my assessment is that Putin is simply not satisfied to bring the war to a closure at this point. Why? Because, notwithstanding the "peacekeeping force" factor, the more important point is that he has not only failed to subdue Ukraine to total capitulation, but he has also failed to occupy enough of the country to deem it a worthy price to satisfy his political objectives. A western-aligned Ukraine that is 20% smaller is still a western-aligned Ukraine. Putin's goal of starting the war was to ultimately deal with Ukraine on unilateral terms.
Because of this, it is an inevitable conclusion that Trump's push for peace is running into difficulty, and US leaders, such as J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, are already publicly expressing frustration over it. While the President is an unpredictable wildcard on what he will choose to do yet, judging by his modus operandi, he may attempt to forcefully end the war in a strictly short-termist manner by making more threats or coercive actions on his side, such as again cancelling Ukraine aid or worse, threatening Moscow. This, however, is no more likely to secure a formalised peace agreement because the political forces of resistance on all sides of the spectrum are against it. Kyiv does not want to concede, Moscow does not want to concede, and the UK and Europe do not want to either.
Trumpian diplomacy can force short-term outcomes, such as when he met Kim Jong-un to end tensions with North Korea, but as it did on that occasion, it fails completely in generating meaningful, long-term, and lasting agreements. He may succeed in securing a ceasefire, but for how long? Who knows? Yet at very best, I believe it can only be a Korean war-style armistice where two dissatisfied parties agree to stop fighting but refuse to formalise any peace or concessions with the other. After this has happened, Trump will declare victory as he always does and just move on. Ukraine's western alignment, as Kyiv wishes, will therefore not stop, and the UK will then pull the strings to ensure the war will not be reignited, hence Kim Il-Sung was never able to invade the south again.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | When faced with US pressure, Britain does what it knows best, capitulate
Opinion | Trump's market manipulation and rhetorical mastery
Opinion | China will not bow down to Trump's coercion
Opinion | One country, two standards—British doublethink over Israel and HK
Comment