By Tom Fowdy
When Donald Trump was campaigning to be re-elected President in 2024, he boasted that he could end the war in Ukraine "within a day" should he wish to do so. On retaking office, he quickly made achieving "peace" in the country one of his core foreign policy objectives, and subsequently began to rebalance relations with Russia. His administration worked to push Moscow and Kyiv towards dialogue, however superficially, and set out a provisional peace agreement that would see Ukraine formally cede the Donbass to Russia.
The proposal was never popular, not least in Kyiv who have repeatedly asserted territorial integrity as non-negotiable, and especially not in Europe due to its perceived threat to the rules-based order. Moscow, of course, also presented their demands as non-negotiable, with Russia, from a strategic point of view, clearly dissatisfied with their failure to subdue Ukraine into a one-sided capitulation and thus in no hurry to end the war. As a result, the progress of this so-called peace process has been one of stagnation, going around in circles with neither Moscow nor Kyiv willing to end it.
Recently, however, another spanner has been thrown in the works. Trump's impulsive and poorly thought-out conflict in Iran has unleashed geopolitical shockwaves that actively disrupt movement towards peace. First of all, if the US positioned itself as a peacemaker regarding Ukraine, it is now unavoidably distracted. Trump can't resolve one major war, if he is now the bidding participant in another, one which he has miscalculated in starting and is seemingly now looking to end himself. The consequences of the Iran war on global energy markets have proved far more severe than those from Ukraine, again, which Trump didn't contemplate, leading him to pursue desperate measures to try and reopen the Strait of Hormuz for western shipping and scramble to stop strikes on Gulf State oil and gas facilities.
Second, the surge in global oil and gas prices triggered by the Iran war is directly applicable to Ukraine because, as an exporter of oil and gas, the situation is a bonanza for Russia. Moscow receives most of its state revenue from energy exports, and now the windfall it is receiving is set to give it the highest income since 2022. This eases the economic pressure on Putin in funding the war, as well as on the economy at home. This buys Russia time in a war which as above set outs, it really does not want to end, which is for all intents and purposes now a war of attrition against Ukraine.
These financial gains by Russia, however, lead to retaliatory acts which serve to escalate the war even further. If Moscow is financially benefiting, then Ukraine's response to that, backed by states in Europe who also do not want the current peace plan (such as Britain), is to strike Russian energy infrastructure with calibrated drone strikes, and they have done just that. In a move which is not a coincidence, the United Kingdom then intercepted a Russian oil tanker and then announced it would do so to any that enters UK waters. The goal is clear, if Russia is deemed to benefit from the current conditions, then the other side will respond.
Where does that lead us to? Moscow retaliated to a strike on its oil facility by sending almost 1000 drones to Ukraine, the highest ever, this week. While Ukraine, for propaganda purposes, will always claim, no matter what, that they shoot 90% down, such a figure is harrowing and shows the war is absolutely escalating, rather than supposedly diminishing. On X, pro-Russian commentators accuse the Kremlin of being weak-willed in response to Ukraine's "provocations", showing they are under political pressure to respond. This demonstrates how the shockwaves and instability caused by one war can immediately create enabling factors for another, namely because it rewrites the political, economic, and strategic incentives for all involved. Nobody knows how long the Iran war is going to last, Tehran having repeatedly publicly rebuffed the idea of negotiations. While this may be a bluff, their geostrategic position over Hormuz is real leverage, and likewise, as with Ukraine itself, why would you agree to capitulate to a series of one-sided demands by a larger power just for the sake of peace?
There are parallels: Trump and Putin both miscalculated that their wars would bring about the swift collapse of the target state, falsely believing their governments were illegitimate and had no popular support. The initial gamble failed, and both countries became locked in a longstanding war of attrition, which then served as a vacuum of their resources and a detriment to their commitments elsewhere, with their opponents demanding concessions that they are unwilling to give. Now, as of 2026, these conflicts have become mutually reinforcing. Trump said he would end the war in Ukraine, but in reality, he's made it a whole lot worse.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | Trump's barely disguised market manipulation papers over the cracks
Opinion | US proposal to lift sanctions on Iranian Oil shows it has already lost
Opinion | How Trump's Iran disaster 'burst the bubble of American omnipotence'
Comment