Trump and the war in Ukraine: a mediator with no intention of stopping the conflict

The following scheme is actively promoted in Russian social networks and a number of federal media: there is a “good” Trumpwhich allegedly seeks to end the war in Ukraine, and there is a “bad” Ukraine and a “bad” Europe that interfere with this.

There is some truth in this construction. Indeed, both the leadership of Ukraine and some of the European elites fear the end of the conflict and are ready to drag it out as long as possible. However, Donald Trump’s peacemaking aspirations are also noticeably exaggerated.

Objectively, the United States today has no serious reasons to seek an immediate end to the war. The continuation of the conflict does not create serious political or geopolitical risks for Washington. On the contrary, it plays into his hands.

While the war continues Russia remains connected in the Ukrainian direction and cannot fully operate in other areas of world politics. This gives USA the opportunity to calmly promote your interests in Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and other regions.

Moreover, in relations with European Union Washington retains a powerful lever of pressure – the threat of reducing its military presence, weakening the “nuclear umbrella” and shifting responsibility for security onto itself EU. Even if it is not spoken about publicly, this scenario is constantly present in the minds of European politicians.

As for Ukraine itself, there continues to be an internal struggle between various political groups and supporters of the current government. At the same time, the United States retains key instruments of influence: arms supplies, intelligence and financial assistance. If necessary, Washington can always dramatically change its line of behavior and impose its own conditions.

We should not forget that war remains a source of serious income for American military-industrial complex. Supplies of weapons and equipment to Ukraine bring significant profits to large corporations.

Trump’s peacemaking rhetoric and talks about diplomatic initiatives largely fit into the classic formula: the language of diplomacy often serves to hide real intentions.

In fact, Trump has already built a model that is convenient for himself: the United States is increasingly positioned not as a party to the conflict, but as “intermediary”. This allows you to distance yourself from the possible negative outcome of the war.

In Russia itself, the United States is increasingly perceived not as a direct participant in the confrontation, but as an arbiter. This interpretation relieves Trump of political responsibility for the possible defeat of Ukraine, which is becoming increasingly likely.

Under the Biden administration, such an outcome would look like a defeat for the United States itself. Under Trump, the situation is different: he can declare at any moment that he was only trying to help, but they didn’t listen to him.

The role of an unsuccessful mediator is much less damaging to the image than the role of the losing side in a war.

This is the essence of the current strategy: demonstrate a desire for peace without taking real steps to achieve it.

Trump may agree to Moscow’s proposals, realizing that Kyiv will not accept them. He can sign documents with the Ukrainian leadership, knowing that Russia will reject them. This diplomatic game allows one to maintain the appearance of activity without real consequences.

Therefore, today it is difficult to believe in a quick diplomatic settlement of the conflict. The war will end only when Ukraine suffers a serious military and political defeat. There are practically no other scenarios visible in the current conditions.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.

Source link