President Donald Trump suggests that for peace in Ukraine, “two people in the tango,” need to work together, but Vladimir Putin’s military actions continue to escalate. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appears more open to realistic discussions.
A recent meeting at the White House with Zelensky and European leaders indicated a potential for peace, although the road ahead seems complex and uneven.
Zelensky made a strong impression, even as Russian attacks targeted civilians. During his visit, he demonstrated a calm demeanor and the ability to navigate the intricacies of American diplomacy.
Switching from military fatigues to more formal attire reflected his respect for the occasion and the U.S. leadership.
He expressed heartfelt thanks to the American public for their steadfast support and showcased a newfound rapport with Trump.
When it came to performance, Zelensky was impressive.
Trump also made a point to affirm his stance.
He adhered to key principles of effective American diplomacy, emphasizing that negotiations with Moscow should not exclude European allies.
This was a lesson learned from history, recalling the mistakes made by President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during the Yalta Conference at the close of World War II.
In contrast, Trump intends to include prominent European leaders in discussions with Zelensky, shaping the peace process collaboratively.
The U.S. holds significant leverage that Trump needs to utilize wisely.
He envisions a scenario where both Putin and Zelensky are in the same room, but first, he must deal cautiously with Moscow’s strategies.
Initially, Moscow demands that it retain control over Ukrainian territory. This is a classic tactic used by Putin; if Kyiv rejects this ultimatum, he can position Ukraine as an impediment to peace while the conflict continues.
Three factors will help gauge the success or failure of peace negotiations.
Firstly, the order of events matters.
While Trump desires a lasting peace, he believes it’s essential for Putin to demonstrate genuine intent by halting military actions.
However, Russia may use any ceasefire to regroup. Thus, Ukraine must secure strong guarantees after the cessation of hostilities.
Secondly, the notion of “land for peace” is misleading in this context, and Trump should tread carefully here.
Putin claims to seek solutions to the “root causes” of the conflict, but his true aim seems to be the annexation of Ukraine.
By fighting for survival, Ukrainians have asserted their right to determine their own futures—seeking deeper integration with the European Union, to evade any future potential Russian domination.
Making significant territorial concessions to Russia could endanger millions of Ukrainians and undermine the sacrifices made by Ukrainian soldiers.
Trump has committed to deferring any specifics regarding Ukraine’s stance, which is a wise approach. Washington shouldn’t pressure Kyiv to concede to Putin’s excessive demands.
Thirdly, the issue of Ukraine’s “stolen children” must be non-negotiable.
Russia has forcibly taken at least 19,500 children from occupied areas.
The Ukrainian First Lady is actively working on this issue, and Melania Trump has even penned a letter to Putin, emphasizing the need for personal diplomatic efforts.
If Putin begrudgingly agrees to terms, the U.S. must exert significant economic pressure to optimize conditions.
Trump can collaborate with European allies to adjust the oil price cap on Russian sales, thereby reducing revenue for Moscow.
Implementing secondary sanctions on the clandestine fleet of Russian oil tankers could enforce compliance with international sanctions and limit financial resources for military activities.
Senator Lindsey Graham has rallied congressional support to empower Trump in sanctioning Russia more effectively.
For a long-term strategy, Trump might take cues from his approach to Iran, suggesting that payments for Russian oil be held in escrow rather than sent directly to Moscow.
Military strategies are also crucial. A priority should be establishing a robust defensive perimeter around Ukraine.
European allies have indicated they will send troops, while the U.S. will support NATO by enhancing arms supplies from American reserves, helping Ukraine access necessary weaponry.
This aid should encompass air defense systems, artillery, and long-range capabilities that can target Russian military sites.
Additionally, Washington should encourage European nations to utilize a portion of the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid and compensate Ukraine.
Engaging Trump in the negotiations is beneficial, but if one partner in this negotiation continues to impose demands, it may be time to shift the dynamics of the conversation.
Putin will be more inclined to negotiate when the costs of his actions outweigh the benefits.
