Trump claims quick Ukraine peace but lacks concrete strategy

Tatiana Kolesnychenko, Wirtualna Polska: The American portal Axios calculated that during the election campaign, Donald Trump publicly declared at least 33 times that he would end the war in Ukraine in "one day". It's now the second month since he won the election, and still, it doesn't seem like he has a plan regarding Ukraine.

Oleksandr Krajew, American studies specialist, expert at the Foreign Policy Council "Ukrainian Prism": Trump had no strategy and, unfortunately, still does not have one to end the war. These statements helped him construct his campaign image. His logic was that it was sufficient to reach a ceasefire and start negotiations, after which he could demonstrate what a strong leader he is.

It doesn’t matter how or at what cost—whether the peace will be just and stable or whether other allies will support it. There was no deep understanding of the complexity of the situation from Trump's side, and it still doesn’t seem like the new administration grasps it now. The president-elect himself admits that everything turned out to be not as simple as he thought.

Was it because "ending the war in one day" could only be on the Kremlin's terms? Otherwise, obligations towards Ukraine and Europe would need to be assumed, which Trump doesn't want.

Regarding Europe, Trump's plan is quite simple. He wants EU countries to invest more in their defence, pay for weapons for Ukraine, and deploy their own peacekeeping forces. Trump can be the intermediary, taking all the credit, but he wants to offload all responsibility onto the Europeans.

Meanwhile, he doesn’t care if peace is lasting. He hasn’t even mentioned the obvious and most important solution for Ukraine—NATO membership after the war. It’s clear that the only country that could influence Kyiv's admission to the Alliance is indeed the United States. But Trump doesn't want to accept that responsibility.

Trump is silent on Ukraine in NATO, but Keith Kellogg, his special envoy for Russia and Ukraine, speaks quite clearly about it. His plan suggests postponing the prospect of membership by a dozen years. In early January, Kellogg was supposed to visit Ukraine [the interview was conducted before it was postponed to the period after Trump's inauguration - ed.]. What proposal could he have for Kyiv?

It's more likely to work the other way around. Kellogg doesn’t want to bring a proposal to Ukraine but to take one from it. We're entering a stage where Zelensky's administration has been declaring readiness to negotiate for six months. Meanwhile, Trump’s administration came to power with a promise to end the war, but two months have passed, and it hasn't even come close to doing so. So, some decisions have to be made.

I assume Kellogg will go to Kyiv to gauge what the real solutions are. His stance on Ukraine in NATO doesn’t align with Kyiv's interests because, currently, he is against it, but he is a realist—a person suitable for someone to work with. Kellogg’s visit will be an opportunity for the Ukrainian establishment to present their vision for ending the war.

Kellogg can gauge the moods in Kyiv, but it’s still unclear how the Trump administration intends to convince the Kremlin to negotiate. Why would Putin make concessions, given that the Russian army, at great cost, is nonetheless achieving successes on the front?

The Kremlin would very much like us to perceive the situation this way. But the indicators demonstrated by the Russian economy tell us otherwise. The ruble is in its worst condition in history. Elvira Nabiullina, head of the Central Bank, did not lower the interest rates, which are currently at a record 21%. So, whatever the Russians say, their economic crisis is only deepening.

China is cutting Moscow off from the yuan market, blocking access to Russian reserves. Besides, for the first time since the full-scale invasion, mobilisation is unable to cover the losses that Russians are suffering at the front. The same applies to the defence industry, which is lagging in production. So, the Russian economy is barely breathing, lacking people and equipment, raising the question: will Russia still be able to maintain such a high pace of offensive? The Kremlin is merely pretending that there is no need to start negotiations.

You mentioned China; is Beijing pressuring Russia to start negotiating in this way?

Both the administration of Joe Biden and now Trump believe that China is the key to unlocking the potential negotiating power of Russia. It's hard to disagree with that. For the last two years, we lived under the paradigm that China doesn’t provide weapons to the Russians because they fear being under sanctions themselves. So, the logic of the West was that it's better not to impose sanctions on China, because otherwise, they would start arming Russia.

But now, with the Kremlin starting to weaken, and Trump wanting to strengthen the United States’ position in the world, the approach is changing 180 degrees. Trump wants Europe to impose sanctions on China, and the USA to join them. In this way, Trump hopes that Beijing will put pressure on Russia.

Kellogg will arrive in Kyiv in January, although later than anticipated. Just days after this visit was announced, it was announced that he doesn’t intend to make a mirror visit to Moscow. Instead, Trump is expected to meet with Putin. Is this a cause for concern for Kyiv?

Yes, because Putin can cleverly manipulate such meetings. On the other hand, Trump has already said he wants to talk to both Kyiv and Moscow. He has already had three meetings with Zelensky.

What's much more important is that it is Kellogg who is not going to Moscow. Trump’s meeting with Putin would be a showcase—a display of power. The real work is being done by Kellogg and his team; they are the ones who will form the proposals, the content that will eventually appear in the peace agreement.

The future meeting between Putin and Trump was sarcastically described by the "Washington Post" as "self-proclaimed geopolitical leaders" seeking to end the war in Ukraine on their own terms. Trump wants an agreement that makes him the mediator, and Putin—"cunning and manipulating"—a division of the world into spheres of influence, where Ukraine and Georgia remain within the Kremlin’s orbit. So, besides flexing muscles, is there a real danger that they will find common ground?

That's a good question, but in this equation, we still have one unknown variable. We don't know what Trump’s position towards China and Russia will be during this presidency. The Biden administration feared Russia because of nuclear weapons, but only viewed China as an equal opponent.

When it came to the global balance of power, Americans calibrated their position based solely on Beijing. China sees it similarly. They do not recognise Moscow as an equal; in terms of power and significance on the international stage, only the USA counts.

How will Trump treat China? So far, no declaration has come from him, nor has there been any announcement of a meeting with Xi Jinping. So, we do not know if both these countries will allow Russia to sit at the "adult table". If Trump views Russia as an equal to the USA and China, then we have a problem. But if not, then the meetings with Putin will not hold much significance.

But among Republicans, there are many proponents of the approach that it’s better to have Russia at your table than on the other side of the barricade as China's ally in a possible conflict in the Pacific. As is known, the Pacific region will be much more important to Trump than Europe.

These ideas were particularly prominent in Republican circles during the primaries. They were expressed by presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy [an American entrepreneur with pro-Russian views - ed.] and unfortunately, he remained in Trump's administration.

The attempt to make Russia an ally is a misguided idea. It is naive to think that Russia, which openly positions itself as anti-West, despises it, and wants to destroy it, would be willing to establish any partnership relations with the USA. Moreover, I wouldn’t count on pitting Moscow against its closest economic partner, China. It's magical thinking that has nothing to do with reality.

On some issues, Trump's views have more in common with Putin than with the West. His image wouldn’t be harmed by good relations with Russia, but if he doesn't end the war, he will come off as a weakling. This plays into the Kremlin's hand, which hopes to enter negotiations from a position of strength, and Trump will have no choice but to pressure Ukraine to accept unfavourable terms. As you said, a ceasefire matters, not a stable and just peace.

This brings us back to the start of our conversation. I don’t think Donald Trump himself even knows what he wants, and since the goal isn't defined, it's unclear how to achieve it. The fact is that right now, for Trump, the most important thing is to start talks and establish a ceasefire, so that he can fulfill his promise and show what a great leader of the global order he is. It would proceed under the premise: look, Biden wasn't able to end the war in Ukraine in over two years, and I managed in a few months.

At this stage, however, Trump's undefined position doesn’t cause much damage because, formally, he is still not the president. As an academic, I could say that for now, Trump is not late in submitting his homework. He has time, and for Ukraine, it's good that Trump sees its readiness to negotiate, offering some perspective, as he has emphasised numerous times. But Kyiv needs to monitor its relationship with Trump because he is unpredictable closely. He is a person of moods, which could change drastically before the inauguration.

Zelensky's office skilfully navigates the relationship with Trump. But does it have influence over his moods?

I think it does. There are personal contacts between Zelensky's office and Trump. Primarily, this involves the line of Andriy Yermak (head of Zelensky's administration) - Lindsey Graham (Republican senator). It was precisely thanks to these contacts that the meeting between Trump and Zelensky was organised in September 2024.

An important aspect is that Zelensky has learned to praise Trump. Again, Trump is a person of mood and frankly says that he only works with those who praise him. If you analyse Zelensky's communication, you'll see that he uses the same language as Trump's entourage—that is, people who know how to make him pleased.

Are you saying that flattery has become a more effective method than diplomacy? It’s somewhat peculiar, considering we are discussing ending the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II.

Honestly? It's complete surrealism. But as my physics teacher used to say, it is a condition of the problem, and our task is to find a solution. We have no choice.

Following this logic, we should be even more concerned about the repercussions of a Trump-Putin meeting, if it happens. You yourself noted that Putin can manipulate. Let’s recall their summit in Helsinki in 2018. It shocked even Republicans. Trump sweet-talked Putin instead of condemning him for the annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and interference in American elections.

The risk is high, but it's worth asking: What does Trump need?

What?

Fame. So he could write strong tweets and show what a powerful leader he is by putting everyone in their place. And money. Both for the American economy and for himself.

What can Russia offer Trump?

Cheap oil and gas. That’s it. But to take advantage of this offer, Trump would have to fall out with all allies, lift sanctions on Russia, and end up looking weak. He would trade away his own image.

And what can Ukraine offer him?

Authority and the image of a strong ruler. He defeated Vladimir Putin, stalemated China in Ukraine. And there’s also money. Intense discussions are currently underway about Ukraine’s rare earth metal deposits, joint investment projects, and most importantly, cooperation in the defence industry, which is worth hundreds of billions, and in the next 10-15 years, trillions of pounds. The biggest sponsors of the Republicans and, personally, Trump are vitally interested in this. Ukraine can offer Trump much more.

According to the American press, Trump is counting on a Nobel Peace Prize...

Well, I won’t speak about the value of this award, but for me, after honouring Barack Obama in 2009 ("for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people" - ed.), it lost its prestige. However, certainly, the Peace Nobel would gratify Trump's ego. Interestingly, Trump's candidacy for the prize was submitted by Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of the Servant of the People party. A councillor in Kyiv commissioned a mural of Trump in his district. Another councillor proposed erecting a bust of Trump in the capital. Different approaches, but the goal is the same: everyone is trying to play on Trump's ego because without his favour, nothing will happen.

But Trump has his close circle of admirers, who are against Ukraine. Take Elon Musk or Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. Both openly support Russia or mock Ukraine and Zelensky. What influence might they have on Trump's mood?

It's true, Trump’s son attacked Zelensky in an embarrassing manner when he was asking for weapons to confront the Russian invasion. Donald Trump then said nothing. I don’t think these attacks were carried out without approval. But I don’t see a big threat in this because Trump is not a person who shares power. He makes decisions independently. These outbursts are needed to test how people react, if they like it when Zelensky is mocked.

And what conclusions might he reach? Do Americans like it when Ukraine’s president is humiliated?

Americans like that Ukraine didn’t get an open checkbook from the USA, meaning they don’t get everything they ask for. They appreciate when the USA is strong and when neither China nor Russia holds them back. They prefer being able to impose their will on others while incurring minimal costs.

And now, Trump’s will is for Ukraine to continue receiving weapons, but in return, they must go to negotiations. It’s not a comfortable situation for Kyiv, but the catastrophic scenario didn’t materialise either. Many predicted that when Trump came to power, Ukraine would not receive a single bullet.

Now, many are waiting for Trump’s inauguration, planned for 20th January, as a day of reckoning. Could he announce the start of negotiations then?

I don't think that the pumpkin will suddenly become a carriage on 20th January, right at midnight. Looking at the dynamics of events, I assume that expert groups will need at least 3-4 months to develop documents, then talks will start. So, around mid-2025, the negotiation process might become public. So, "ending the war in one day" may take some time, and just this fact will make it not unfold according to Trump's scenario.

Tatiana Kolesnychenko is a journalist for Wirtualna Polska