The US has ceaselessly supported Kyiv since Russia entered the war in Ukraine in February 2022, as the war continued to drag on. On 23 January, Trump threatened to impose new sanctions, tariffs and taxes on Russia if it does not strike a deal with the US to resolve the nearly three-year-old Ukrainian crisis, and this raises questions about both his approach and ability to fulfill his promise.
While Trump thinks Russia has an incentive to make a deal, he also sees how the perpetuation of the Ukrainian conflict has strained the global economy. Certainly, this is true for European countries that dug deep into their pockets to support Kyiv while their economic growth contracted due to the political repercussions on global energy supplies, not least inexpensive natural gas from Russia. As Trump sees it, ending the war would restore global economic equilibrium and reduce inflation in the West.
Trump and his team have long been critics of “project Ukraine”. Along with Musk, conservatives in his administration like Vance, Ramaswamy and Carlson have described Ukraine as a “huge money-laundering machine” for the US political establishment: they want to wash Washington’s hands of Ukraine or at least ensure that the project is managed in accordance with US interests, which means unloading the costs and other repercussions of the war onto European allies.
At the same time, the Trump administration understands that, for all the Western military and financial aid, Kyiv cannot win a decisive victory. This is another main reason why Trump wants to push for an end to the war. He shares the frustration among a broad sector of Republican politicians complaining of the vast sums of money spent on the war in Ukraine with no concrete results on the ground. He and his team are convinced that the Biden administration’s policy of sending more weapons to Ukraine to pressure Moscow will accomplish nothing but further depletion of US military stockpiles.
At the same time, his thinking on Ukraine is informed by developments in the Middle East. Israel’s aggressions against Gaza and Lebanon and its attacks against the Houthis in Yemen, the Popular Mobilisation Units in Iraq and elsewhere, are rebounding against US interests in the region. Conflicts in this region are probably another reason why Trump might want to at the very least deprioritise spending on Ukraine.
Trump’s declared positions and other factors have encouraged speculation that he will be instrumental in brokering a resolution to the Ukrainian crisis. On 22 January, Trump gave Keith Kellogg, his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, a 100-day deadline to find a path to end that conflict. Some believe that Trump’s special relationship with Putin will help. On Thursday, Trump indicated that he was ready to meet President Putin to discuss a solution to the war. He would be doing Russia and Putin “a very big favour” because the Russian economy is failing, he claimed on Truth Social. In response, the Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Putin was ready to speak with Trump, and Putin himself in an interview on Russian television, said he would be open to meeting with Trump to discuss topics of mutual concern, including Ukraine.
To appease Trump more, Putin went further in supporting Trump’s claim that the US presidency was “stolen” from him.
“I couldn’t disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn’t stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided.”
During his first term, Trump had made it clear that he considered Beijing, not Moscow, the US’ principal adversary.
Trump is also confident in his ability to apply his business savvy and bargaining acumen to his dealings with Moscow over Ukraine. This leads observers to anticipate that he will try to broker an agreement that strikes an acceptable balance between the interests of the stakeholders, wielding both carrots and a stick to this end. While he mentioned sanctions against Moscow, he undoubtedly calculates that the spectre of reduced US financial and military support for Ukraine would induce Kyiv to show the necessary degree of flexibility.
But as determined as the Trump administration may be to end the war, numerous challenges lie ahead. Foremost among those is the absence of a concrete and detailed roadmap. So far, there have been only statements and vague proposals; nothing has been fleshed out. Secondly, European attitudes, at least at the official level, are at odds with those of the Trump administration and could present obstacles.
Thirdly, Trump might become distracted by other priorities such as the trade war with China and promoting normalisation with Israel in the Middle East. This is not to mention domestic issues that will take up most of his attention and will, therefore, impose time limits on the actions he takes to end the war in Ukraine.
Consequently, as ambitious as Trump’s statements and steps so far appear, he may not be able to achieve a breakthrough towards a resolution to the Ukrainian crisis as rapidly and definitively as he hopes. However, his actions may still induce the Russians and Ukrainians to opt for diplomatic tools over military machinery to settle their conflict, which would help mitigate the detrimental political and economic fallout from the war. Above all, it would reduce escalatory dynamics and bring the conflict back from the unprecedented brink it had reached in recent months.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 30 January, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: