The Financial Times recently reported on former U.S. President Donald Trump’s prospective plan to address the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war should he return to office. Trump’s proposal, as laid out by his advisers, includes establishing demilitarised zones on both sides of the Ukraine-Russia border or along defined separation lines.
This concept aims to “freeze” the conflict without necessitating either Ukraine or Russia formally surrendering claims to disputed territories. Ukraine would not renounce its internationally recognised borders, while Russia would maintain its territorial assertions without formal abandonment of Ukraine’s territories.
However, Trump’s plan hinges on a significant diplomatic concession: the suspension of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration for several years. Trump’s advisers argue that such a stance would entice Russian President Vladimir Putin into negotiations, on the basis that NATO expansion – a longstanding Kremlin concern – would effectively be paused.
Feasibility of Freezing the Conflict
Trump’s proposal does not guarantee territorial resolutions, nor does it suggest that Ukraine should give up control over its borders. Instead, it offers a temporary freeze to limit hostilities.
However, the success of this approach depends heavily on Russia’s willingness to halt its operations. Putin’s forces continue their offensive, targeting Ukrainian infrastructure with drones and aircraft.
Trump’s plan may therefore lack the necessary leverage to bring Putin to the negotiating table, especially without a demonstrated military or economic force to back it up.
NATO and European Military Presence: An Unsettling Prospect for Moscow
In addition to the demilitarisation zones, Trump’s camp suggests that European forces, rather than American troops, could serve as peacekeepers in these zones. However, as these forces would likely come from NATO member states, such an arrangement could be unacceptable to Moscow, which would view NATO troops as effectively stationed on Ukraine’s territory. This could paradoxically increase tensions by transforming the war into one involving NATO more directly, something that could provoke rather than prevent escalation.
Russia’s opposition to NATO presence in Ukraine is rooted less in fear of NATO itself and more in the implications for Moscow’s regional influence. Russia has historically opposed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations because they impede Moscow’s ambitions to retain a sphere of influence over Ukraine. The positioning of NATO troops in Ukraine, even in a peacekeeping role, would signify Ukraine’s irreversible drift away from Russian influence.
Economic Sanctions and Strategic Pressure
A recurring point in Trump’s strategy is the possibility of exerting economic pressure on Russia. Trump has suggested that he could “crash” Russia’s economy to coerce compliance, but practical means to achieve this are uncertain.
Russia, having adjusted to years of sanctions, has found alternative economic partnerships, particularly with China and India. These relationships have cushioned Moscow from the harsher impacts of Western sanctions, allowing it to continue its military operations.
Trump’s camp has not provided detailed mechanisms through which it could enact additional, effective economic pressure.
Further, a strategy based on threatening Russia’s economy might only push Moscow towards stronger alliances with countries outside the West’s sphere of influence, such as China. This could counter Trump’s own anti-China agenda, as bolstering Sino-Russian ties could lead to a more united front against the U.S. and its allies.
A Reality Check: The Disconnect in Trump’s Strategy
The Trump administration’s proposed approach to the Ukraine conflict is emblematic of a wider trend of political strategies crafted in the context of ideal scenarios, rather than on-the-ground realities. Trump’s plan presupposes that the conflict can be “frozen” without substantial compromises from either side, and that Russia would view a halt in Ukraine’s NATO ambitions as sufficient incentive for peace.
However, Putin’s current military posture indicates that he is prepared to continue exerting pressure on Ukraine, with the ultimate goal of undermining its sovereignty.
For Ukraine, a pause in NATO membership aspirations would be a major concession, and it remains uncertain how such a stance would be received by Ukrainian leadership, who have increasingly prioritised Euro-Atlantic integration.
Additionally, as NATO countries have expressed varying degrees of support for Ukraine’s full membership, even the symbolic halt suggested in Trump’s plan may hold limited practical sway.
Trump’s Challenges on the International Stage
If Trump were to return to the White House, he would face a geopolitical landscape transformed since his previous tenure. With Russia and China bolstering their military and economic cooperation, Trump would encounter a more polarised global order. His team has not clarified how it plans to prevent Russia from continuing its partnership with China, especially if the U.S. were to intensify its stance against Beijing. Moreover, China’s influence in global supply chains and strategic sectors could complicate any attempts by the U.S. to isolate Russia.
In conclusion, Trump’s plan to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict reveals notable gaps between ambition and reality. While the notion of freezing the conflict might appeal to an American electorate wary of continued U.S. involvement, its feasibility remains dubious given the complex diplomatic and military dynamics at play.
Furthermore, Moscow’s reservations about NATO, concerns regarding its regional dominance, and ongoing military engagements present significant barriers.
Ultimately, Trump’s approach reflects a vision that, while appealing in theory, may struggle to materialise in the present geopolitical climate. It highlights the challenges any U.S. president would face in navigating the deeply entrenched hostilities between Russia and Ukraine, a conflict that has become emblematic of larger global rivalries.
Read also:
J.D. Vance and Trump’s Vision for Ending the Russia-Ukraine War: A Misguided Approach?