Following his diplomatic success in resolving the two-year-long Gaza conflict, US President Donald Trump is now looking to leverage this momentum to address the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, which has surpassed its third year. The leader who has reestablished himself as a decisive mediator now possesses considerable political and moral capital, positioning him to initiate negotiations with both Moscow and Kyiv. He aims to demonstrate that Washington can effectively facilitate peace in one of the world’s most complicated crises, benefiting from his previous connections with the Kremlin and President Vladimir Putin.
However, the path toward a breakthrough in the Russia-Ukraine conflict remains fraught with significant challenges. Russia views the war as a strategic investment crucial to its security and influence, firmly rejecting any settlement that does not acknowledge its new borders or lift existing sanctions.
Conversely, Ukraine cannot afford to concede any of its territory, while Europe appears divided between those eager to conclude the war at any cost and those wary of granting Moscow any advantages at the expense of continental security. The ongoing escalation of military actions and attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure further restricts the likelihood of an immediate ceasefire.
Despite these hurdles, analysts suggest that Trump’s success in Gaza could serve as a model for a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine, potentially leading to a halt in hostilities and an exchange of defined security and economic guarantees, albeit without a definitive resolution to the conflict. While the chance for a comprehensive breakthrough seems distant, a renewed negotiation process under American auspices could pave the way for a long journey toward resolution if Trump can convince Moscow, Kyiv, and European capitals that an imperfect peace is preferable to an interminable war.
In this context, international and Russian affairs expert Timour Doydar remarked: “Trump is making significant efforts to quell the military conflict in Europe, and he has many resources to utilize in halting the fighting and repairing relations between the West and Russia, aiming for a fair peace.”
Doydar continued: “So far, I see that the US administration’s actions are leaning towards stopping the war, and I perceive that President Trump is quite cooperative with the Russian administration led by President Putin, moving towards a path aimed at extinguishing the flames, so to speak.” He indicated that Trump has scaled back or ceased military shipments to Ukraine and halted various forms of aid to Kyiv, transitioning into what could be described as a “peace-maker.”
Doydar also noted the real challenge lies with the European stance, which has engaged in the crisis under the leadership of Washington. He stated: “Thus far, Trump is pursuing a positive course, but he needs to exert genuine pressure on Europeans to withdraw from this issue, which America itself played a major role in exacerbating, dragging the European bloc along with it.”
The international affairs expert concluded by expressing: “I hope Trump does everything within his power to persuade Europeans to also step back from this escalating crisis… the entire dilemma lies with the Europeans; we will have to wait.”
Limited Opportunities
From another perspective, political researcher Dr. Amani Al-Qurm believes Trump’s chances of making a significant breakthrough regarding the Russia-Ukraine war remain limited, despite his strong desire to resolve it. The crisis has evolved beyond a bilateral issue between Moscow and Kyiv, becoming an open conflict between Russia and the West in the broader context of international power dynamics.
Al-Qurm explains: “Trump’s approach relies heavily on personal relationships in crisis resolution, leveraging his connections with world leaders and his strong personality. He has repeatedly claimed he could end the war in 24 hours, citing his good relationship with Putin compared to his cooler dealings with Ukrainian President Zelensky. However, the complexities of the military and political situation exceed what individual leaders can manage, as Moscow views Ukraine as part of its historical legacy, while Kyiv sees it as an existential battle for its independence and alignment with the West.”
She adds that Trump’s policy is based on the principle of “peace through strength,” which aided him in securing a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel; yet, he faces a different dilemma with Russia, a major nuclear power reluctant to accept any settlement perceived as a concession or defeat.
Al-Qurm also points out that Trump’s recent threat to supply Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles, capable of reaching deep into Russian territory, could shift the balance of military power and push Moscow toward negotiations, but it could also open the door to dangerous escalation and direct military retaliation from Russia.
She warns that while military pressure could provide Trump a limited window of influence to indicate to Moscow that the war could turn against them, excessive reliance on this approach risks broadening the conflict instead of bringing it to an end.
In conclusion, Dr. Amani Al-Qurm states that any realistic settlement necessitates a multi-faceted approach that balances Russian interests with Western security concerns, rather than hinging merely on Trump’s political charisma or personal strength in brokering deals.