Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 created the most serious security problem in Europe since the end of World War II in 1945. Türkiye, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been the most committed country to the idea of ending this war with its principled humanitarian and balanced approach to the conflict. Türkiye facilitated the exchange of prisoners of war as well as the key grain deal between Ukraine and Russia. Erdoğan encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. Although Türkiye’s mediation efforts both at the margins of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum and in Istanbul increased hopes for ending the war at the initial stage of the war in 2022, the parties abruptly withdrew from these mediated talks and intensified their war efforts by escalating the security risks and increasing humanitarian and material costs of the war considerably.
Donald Trump’s election as the new President of the United States in November 2024 increased hopes for ending the Ukraine war since he made it clear not only during his election campaign but since the beginning of the war that he could end this war in “24 hours” when he is reelected as the President. Accordingly, his strategy of ending the Russia-Ukraine War, as well as the prospects for its successful implementation, deserve an analysis.
Actually, Trump has prioritized ending the Ukraine War since this objective has been central to his domestic strategy of weakening the Democratic Party in U.S. politics as well as to his global strategy of isolating China by splitting the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership. He assumes that the Ukraine war could be averted diplomatically through a deal with Russia. Trump has criticized former President Joe Biden's administration and its international partners several times for creating a political alliance to support the war effort in Ukraine without a realistic strategy for winning the war against Russia.
Trump believes that Biden’s strategy on the Ukraine war weakened the U.S. economically, made it more dependent on its European allies and increased the risk of war with Russia with all nuclear doomsday scenarios. Similarly, Trump considers the continuation of the Ukraine war quite beneficial to China, which is, for Trump, the real threat to U.S. global leadership. Trump assumes that this war strengthens China by shifting the strategic focus of the U.S. from China's primary threat to Russia's secondary risk factor. He also considers strengthening the Chinese-Russian strategic ties due to this war detrimental to the U.S.'s vital interests.
Since ending this “unnecessary war” – in Trump’s opinion – is central to Trump’s overall foreign policy vision, Trump swiftly normalized relations with Putin and Russia without consulting Ukraine and other European allies shortly after his term started. On the other hand, he pushed Zelenskyy to sign a deal unilaterally giving the Ukrainian natural minerals and rare earth elements to the U.S. As if it was not enough, he rejected the calls of Zelenskyy and the European leaders to give strong security guarantees to Ukraine against Russia. Instead, he cut all military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine. As for his European allies, he raised the issue of increasing tariffs against European exports to the U.S. markets. By creating all these circumstances, Trump believes that Ukraine and its international supporters have no option other than ending the war and accepting the deal, which is expected to be signed separately between Trump and Putin.
Trump’s strategy seems to have considerable strengths and some weaknesses. Its main strength appears to be Ukraine’s overdependence on the U.S. military and economic support for the continuation of Ukraine’s war effort against the Russian invasion. Besides, the Ukrainian leadership under Zelenskyy seemed to have ignored the possibility that Trump could win the presidential election. Zelenskyy’s active involvement in the election campaign of the Democratic Party turned out to be his fatal mistake, as U.S. Vice President JD Vance mentioned during their confrontation in the Oval Office on Feb. 28.
Zelenskyy might have hoped that the European allies would provide him with the necessary military and economic aid. Although the U.K., France and the majority of other European states, as well as the European Union, declared their solidarity with Zelenskyy after he failed to get U.S. support for his war strategy, it seems that they do not have the necessary institutional mechanisms, material resources and political will to sustain Ukraine’s war effort in the absence of the U.S. support. Besides, they face significant internal resistance to the continuation of the Ukraine war since small but still significant segments of European societies question the economic burden and energy-related risks of the Ukraine war. Likewise, mainly ultra-right-wing and also some ultra-left-wing political parties increase their political support base considerably by questioning the continuation of the Ukraine war. All these factors seem to be strengthening the prospects for the success of Trump’s strategy.
Nevertheless, Trump’s strategy for ending the Ukraine war has some weaknesses, too. The main weakness of his strategy seems to be the exclusion of the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainians from the peace process. Trump’s desire to impose such a peace plan on the Ukrainian side is likely to backfire at the popular level in Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Even if Trump succeeds in getting Zelenskyy to sign a deal imposed on him, the majority of Ukrainians are very likely to see such a peace process as quite humiliating and unacceptable. This could create a long-term legitimacy problem for Trump’s plan, making it unsustainable even in the near future.
Likewise, the American supporters of the Democratic Party and their European allies find Trump’s approach to betray the traditional values of the U.S. and the conventional basis of European security. These actors could be expected to create domestic and international hurdles for Trump whenever he implements this strategy. They could also use the period until the next U.S. elections in 2028 to weaken Trump politically by exploiting these weaknesses of his strategy. The Democratic Party is very likely to revive the policy of supporting Ukraine and other neighbors of Russia against Moscow’s expansionist policies if and when it wins the next presidential election in the U.S. in 2028.
Although Donald Trump’s strategy of ending the Ukraine War could be influential in forcing Ukraine and its international allies to accept a deal between Trump and Putin, albeit unwillingly, it has little chance of winning the hearts and minds of the Ukrainians and the rest of global public opinion. Given the complexity of the situation in the Ukraine War, I think it could be very timely and vital if Türkiye’s mediation efforts were revived by engaging the Ukrainian and Russian sides on an equal footing. Türkiye’s mediation could be essential in brokering a deal that could uphold the dignity of the Ukrainian side and address the legitimate security concerns of the European allies of the U.S. against the potential security risks emanating from Russia’s geopolitical expansionism.
