As we all know, the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fourth year, with a huge shift on the horizon: President Donald Trump’s push for direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump’s diplomatic efforts focus on pressuring Ukraine into a potential mineral deal, as well as encouraging a peace agreement, while also applying economic pressure on Russia.
All of this is an old strategy that has been previously faltered. Quite confident in his position, Russian President Putin intensified his attacks, to make sure he maximizes gains before any potential peace talks.
The recapture of 90% of the Kursk region, with tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers encircled, has left Ukraine quite literally in shambles, trying to minimize losses as much as possible.
This aggravating escalation came right after a tense exchange between Ukrainian President Zelensky and President Trump in the White House, which led to a complete U-turn by Zelensky, in order to secure Trump’s support.
This ultimately resulted in the resumption of military hardware, as well as intelligence sharing with Ukraine after a brief pause.
European leaders, however, continue to support Ukraine’s cause with constant summits and meetings, urging it to hold out for as long as possible.
But their nervousness is noticeable, especially since they lack the ability to shoulder Ukraine’s burden without the United States.
They are more focused on building their own strength while increasing aid to Ukraine, Nevertheless, internally they are divided, especially on their role and level of commitment.
The 30-day ceasefire proposal, along with the restoration of military aid and intelligence sharing, didn’t sit too well with Russia, which saw it as a one-sided breather that let Ukraine gather strength and forces.
In the meantime, the battlefield realities are rapidly shifting in Russia’s favor, with advancements in the Kursk region and across multiple fronts.
The most important elements of Trump’s strategy: a more calculated approach
As many believe that Trump’s actions are downright unpredictable, a much closer analysis shows a well-defined strategic pattern in existing realities.
His team already showed some of his intentions through various means. For instance, the Secretary of Defense addressed it in Brussels or various statements made at the Munich Conference, as well as the draft mineral deal with Ukraine.
Zelensky’s inconclusive visit to the White House, all the summits that took place in Europe, as well as the UK’s support of Zelensky (the Advocating Coalition of the Willing), all have been strategic moves on behalf of both parties. Who is exactly in these parties is yet to be determined.
So far, Trump’s actions show a desire to end Cold War 1.0 with Russia, and then shift the focus to Cold War 2.0, targeting China through non-kinetic means, like economic warfare.
He doesn’t want to get dragged into unwanted escalation with Russia into nuclear war or even potential World War 3, risks reinforced by ongoing actions in Ukraine and Europe.
His strategy, in fact, suggests reducing non-profitable global commitments, focusing efforts on the Indo-Pacific, where the global economic fulcrum is perpetually changing, and allowing Europe to organize its own security.
Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Hegseth, has been advocating for diplomatic negotiations for quite a while, stating that NATO membership for Ukraine isn’t a feasible outcome of any negotiated settlement.
He even went on to call the object of restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders “unrealistic,” emphasizing that European nations support a greater share of military and non-military aid to Ukraine.
He also decided to rule out any US troop deployment in Ukraine, as well as any cover under Article 5 for future Peacekeepers deployment.
Given the hopeless situation on the frontlines of the attacked country, the USA is still not interested in sharing the embarrassment of a possible lost war, especially if Ukraine or Europe decide to continue it.
Trump’s strategy, among other things, includes extracting economic benefits from Ukraine, restarting all diplomatic engagements with Russia, as well as leveraging resources.
His approach could also involve lifting some sanctions, in exchange for Russian concerns, or even imposing more, especially if Russia doesn’t adhere to peace initiatives. The latter is still yet to be deemed successful or not.
Why is NATO in so much struggle? Internal divisions and military limitations
After only three years, NATO is more divided than ever, with no clear war aims or strategy for any conflict resolution or a plan to counter a very determined Russia towards its war objectives, after enduring the sanctions by the Collective West.
Ever since, NATO countries have depended on collective security, with the United States doing all the heavy lifting.
The wide majority of NATO countries dismissed the prospect of building their combat capacities and decided to reduce their army to approximately five to 20% of its original size post-World War II.
Slowly but surely, NATO kept expanding eastward into countries in the east. Without creating capabilities to push back from Russia, they added a series of security liabilities.
Nowadays, these countries find themselves unable to defend themselves, without a U.S. security umbrella.
At the war’s outset, NATO’s main goal was to weaken Russia and reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian energy, as well as create a captive market for U.S. defense and energy companies.
But, as the war dragged on, NATO’s stance shifted from “Putin must lose” to “Putin must not win.” Now, there’s only “Ukraine should end up with a justful peace.”
This is something President Donald Trump foresaw, and that’s partly one of the reasons why he has been insisting on NATO increasing their defense spending.
The future of NATO’s support for Ukraine and the gesture of France to open debate to extend its nuclear umbrella to Europe hasn’t changed, however, the ground situation in war without U.S. leadership.
Russia has a way bigger nuclear arsenal, without the nod of the USA, Europe is quite unlikely to go straight to war with Russia.
Poland’s request for the deployment of nuclear weapons on its soil, for example, is a non-starter, because of all the risks it poses.
But even in a scenario where Europe increases its efforts into building a military capacity for combat (for reference, the EU has proposed mobilizing $841 billion for its security), it will take a very long time before they are confident of taking on Russia without war.
Therefore, it leaves NATO with limited options, being only able to support Ukraine in a proxy war and gravely depleting its own reserves.
There is quite a wide variation in their opinions, orientations, as well as actions, and internal divisions are increasingly poignant.
There are some NATO countries where the public support for long-term aid to Ukraine is dwindling, with economic challenges such as inflation and energy costs making defense spending increasingly more unlikely.
NATO might not be collapsing, that’s true, but it is undoubtedly struggling with its own internal disagreements, military capacity, and long-term strategic goals.
Future of the 30-day ceasefire proposal
After a meeting in Saudi Arabia to discuss peace, the U.S. and Ukrainian diplomats crafted a 30-day ceasefire proposal to Russia.
But the U.S. seemed way too eager to restore military aid and intelligence sharing and prevent a collapse in Kursk. Initially, the ceasefire proposal was hailed by the Western media as a breakthrough, but it was in fact a tactical move for Zelensky, who had little choice but to accept it.
Since the proposal wasn’t completely transparent, it gave Russia reasons to believe that it would allow Ukraine to rearm and reorganize.
If you found this article useful, we also recommend checking: Far-Right Leaders Shockingly Attending Trump’s Inauguration
