The second inauguration of Donald Trump has brought with it a dramatic shift in American rhetoric on the war in Ukraine. By threatening severe economic penalties against Russia and urging President Vladimir Putin to negotiate an end to the conflict, President Trump has thrust himself into the global spotlight as a would-be peacemaker. However, while his approach is undeniably bold, it raises questions about the feasibility of his ambitions and the complexities of achieving peace in such a deeply entrenched war.

Mr Trump’s ultimatum to Russia centres on leveraging economic sanctions and tariffs to compel Moscow to the negotiating table. His framing of these actions as a “favour” to Mr Putin adds a strategic twist, painting his proposed deal-making as mutually beneficial rather than purely punitive. This posture reflects Mr Trump’s signature style of negotiation ~ confrontational yet couched in rhetoric that appeals to the self-interest of his counterpart. For a Russia grappling with economic strain and an increasingly protracted conflict, the pressure could be significant. However, the core issues that have perpetuated the war remain unresolved. Russia insists on the recognition of its territorial gains in Ukraine and demands that Kyiv forego any thoughts of Nato membership. Ukraine, on the other hand, refuses to accept the loss of sovereignty over its occupied territories, even temporarily, while demanding guarantees of security.

Advertisement

These starkly opposing positions underscore the challenges of brokering any deal, regardless of external pressure. Peace, as history has often shown, cannot be dictated; it must be built on mutual concessions, a scenario that currently appears distant. Ukraine’s leadership, while welcoming tougher stances against Russia, has expressed scepticism about whether rhetoric will translate into meaningful action. The Ukrainian government has called for tangible support, such as robust sanctions, military aid, and even peacekeeping forces that include US troops. For Kyiv, strength and deterrence are paramount, as past peace deals with Russia have often been short-lived or poorly enforced. Meanwhile, signs of shifting narratives within Russia suggest a potential, albeit slim, opening for dialogue. Discussions in Moscow hint at a readiness to halt fighting along current frontlines, though such proposals remain controversial among hardline factions. If this internal debate evolves, it could create an opportunity for the new American President’s approach to gain traction. However, any concessions by Russia would likely be framed as temporary, complicating the prospects for lasting peace.

Ultimately, Mr Trump’s intervention may succeed in raising the stakes for Russia, but true peace will require navigating a minefield of geopolitical realities. A sustainable resolution must address the legitimate security concerns of both Ukraine and Russia while ensuring mechanisms to enforce any agreement. As Mr Trump’s tenure unfolds, the world will watch closely to see whether his threats and promises translate into substantive progress ~ or remain another chapter in the rhetoric of war. Europe, although reduced to a tangential role in Mr Trump’s scheme of things, must hope that any peace formula takes on board its security concerns.