Donald Trump’s election victory and his vow to swiftly end the Ukraine-Russia war present both an ambitious promise and a diplomatic quandary. The appointment of Keith Kellogg as special envoy for the conflict underscores the gravity of this commitment. However, the lack of detailed strategies raises questions about the feasibility of this bold agenda. Mr Kellogg’s proposals hint at a pragmatic, albeit contentious, approach. His framework prioritises a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, leveraging US aid to compel Ukraine to participate in talks while holding Moscow accountable for any reluctance.

The suggestion to defer Ukraine’s Nato membership is particularly striking, as it balances between appeasing Russian concerns and maintaining Ukraine’s sovereignty. While such a stance may entice Moscow to the negotiating table, it risks alienating Kyiv, whose aspirations for Nato integration are deeply tied to its security strategy. This balancing act highlights a broader challenge: the divergent interests of the parties involved. Ukraine seeks robust security guarantees, while Russia desires concessions on Nato expansion and a reprieve from international sanctions. Any negotiated settlement will require not only resolving these issues but also addressing the long-term security architecture of eastern Europe. Achieving this without undermining Ukraine’s independence or emboldening Russian aggression is a delicate tight-rope act.

Advertisement

For Mr Trump, the stakes are high. His administration’s success in resolving this conflict would not only reinforce his image as a decisive leader but also redefine American influence on the global stage. However, the promise to end the war “on day one” risks oversimplifying a deeply entrenched conflict. Wars driven by historical grievances and territorial ambitions rarely yield to quick fixes, and the expectation of immediate results could backfire if progress proves slow. The recent meeting between Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskky in Paris, brokered by French President Emmanuel Macron, has injected a new dynamic into the conflict.

While the optics of a handshake and amicable discussion may suggest progress, the contrasting post-meeting statements from Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskky reveal a significant gap in their visions for peace. Mr Trump’s call for an immediate ceasefire and his assertion that this is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “time to act” reflect a desire to project leadership and resolve. However, Mr Zelenskky’s insistence on guarantees for lasting peace underscores the complexities of any potential agreement. Without addressing issues like territorial sovereignty and credible security assurances, this meeting risks being perceived as a symbolic gesture rather than a substantial step forward. Moreover, conditional aid as a negotiating tool is a double-edged sword.

While it may pressure Ukraine to engage in talks, it also risks diminishing trust between Washington and Kyiv. Ukraine has been a steadfast US ally, and any perception of coercion could weaken this partnership. Another critical factor is the role of international stakeholders beyond the immediate parties involved. The European Union, China, and other global powers have vested interests in the region’s stability. Engaging these actors in a multilateral dialogue could strengthen the prospects for a balanced resolution.