Trump’s political choices in international relations reinforce this dynamic. For example, Keith Kellogg, his choice for special envoy to Ukraine, co-authored a report earlier this year arguing that it was in the United States’ interest to ensure a “defeated and weakened Russia” and that Trump administration should continue supplying weapons to Ukraine without asking Kyiv to abandon its goal of recovering all of its territory. Although Kellogg may have evolved in his views in recent months, a mentality like this makes it difficult to achieve any meaningful reassessment of the U.S.-Russia relationship — a reassessment that Putin sees as essential to peace.
Europe also represents a major obstacle. Its leaders have shown little inclination to engage in negotiations, with some actively opposing Trump’s initiatives. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s new foreign affairs chief, recently rejected the idea of pressuring Zelenskyy to begin peace talks, saying Putin is unwilling to negotiate. At the same time, the European Council adopted a new sanctions package, reaffirming that “Russia must not prevail” and emphasizing the EU’s “unwavering commitment” to providing political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic assistance to Ukraine “as long as necessary and as intensively as necessary”. This support was reinforced by an even more hawkish European Parliament resolution, which implicitly evokes an all-out war against Russia, or even a Third World War.
Europe’s economic and security interests clearly lie in ending the war and renormalizing relations with Russia — a position that enjoys growing support among European citizens. In this regard, Trump could be seen as an opportunity: since the United States has always seen NATO as a means of ensuring the strategic subordination of Europe, the president-elect’s threat to reduce American commitments towards the alliance could offer Europe the opportunity to redefine itself as an autonomous and peaceful actor. Instead, Europe appears to be responding to its identity crisis by projecting the role of the United States onto itself, replicating the aggressive stance of its former protector.
Meanwhile, NATO’s overall direction appears little affected by Trump’s imminent return, suggesting that it answers more to the US military and security apparatus than to the White House. For example, Mark Rutte, NATO’s new secretary general, recently said that the alliance should not talk about peace but rather focus on sending more weapons to Ukraine.
-The path to peace remains strewn with pitfalls. Putin’s conditions for a peace deal are uncompromising, while Western leaders, while partially aware of the need to negotiate, remain firmly entrenched in their positions. The hawkish position of Europe, increasingly isolated on this point, further complicates things. For Trump, the challenge will be twofold: he will not only have to overcome domestic resistance to concessions — notably from the pro-war establishment — but also navigate the geopolitical minefield of the divergent interests of his Western allies. While his desire to end the war is laudable, resolving such a complex conflict will require much more than quick fixes or bold proclamations.
The stakes have never been higher. Without a serious commitment to diplomacy and a willingness to make difficult compromises, the war will either continue as a war of attrition, slowly becoming bogged down, or will be temporarily frozen, only to reignite again later. In either case, it would risk further worsening relations between the West and Russia, with catastrophic consequences for Ukraine, Europe and the entire world.
Comments on the French edition
