Donald Trump, in his many feats of arms, may well have written the best-selling book The art of negotiation in 1987, it is not enough to call ourselves that to reach a rapid, fair and lasting agreement in a geopolitical situation as complex as that which has agitated Russia and Ukraine for almost three years. The rules of economics applied to politics, on the one hand, are no longer the same in the face of the decline of multilateralism, and the numerous changes in the world over the past forty years have made the outcome of a good “deal”, let’s hear which satisfies all parties, much more hazardous.
Three weeks before his inauguration at the White House, the 47th President of the United States activated all the levers and the key figures of his diplomatic staff to force Putin and Zelensky to find a way out by then and sign an agreement historic “peace”, where everyone will have shown sufficient flexibility to abandon part of their demands: the abandonment of NATO membership for Ukraine, against the maintenance of de facto sovereignty for Russia on the territories conquered kyiv by Moscow since the war. The current thorn in the side of the future tenant of the White House concerns the actors who will ensure the maintenance of peace once the agreement is signed.
If Trump’s diplomatic advisers managed to force Zelensky to agree to go to the negotiating table, in exchange for a commitment of major American support for his security, Vladimir Putin is more desired. General Kellogg, the US envoy for Russia and Ukraine, and Richard Grenell, former US ambassador to Germany, former US special envoy for Serbia and Kosovo, and future key figure in the Trump II administration at the State Department or the National Security Council, are moving behind the scenes between all parties, with Stephen Miller, Trump’s future deputy chief of staff. They met in Brussels at the end of last year with the President of the European Commission, Ursula Van der Leyen, and Kaja Kallas, the new head of European diplomacy, to inform them of the progress of the negotiations between Ukrainians and Russians. All this is a continuation of the meeting in Paris between Trump and Zelensky, organized by Macron, at the time of the reopening of Notre-Dame in early December 2024.
Europe sees Trump’s upcoming policy as a clear abandonment of kyiv
Europe is worried about Ukraine and views Trump’s upcoming policy as a clear abandonment of kyiv. This is not what the new Trumpist administration is defending: if Washington threatened to reduce its support for Zelensky by 75%, it was to force him to discuss. The EU knows that it cannot follow alone, especially since the terms proposed by Washington are difficult for Brussels to swallow. Grenell recalled during this winter meeting that he would not take into account the European position, which he says he knows by heart and which he condemns. So let’s understand: the United States is ready to let go of the predominantly Russian-speaking territories conquered by Moscow since 2022 as a sign of American “good will”, which the Europeans categorically refuse, and to coax Putin into opening up to negotiation .
Does Russia have an interest in ending the conflict?
The European Union has never ceased, despite negotiations in the shadow of the future American administration, to reiterate that the EU’s military and budgetary support for Ukraine would not only continue, but would definitely be increased until ‘until the ceasefire is signed and a concrete peace process is launched. But what can Europe do if Washington offers Ukrainian territories to Moscow to advance the discussion? This held as long as the negotiations were progressing well. But they have become complicated in recent days, provoking the ire of Donald Trump. Especially since Putin is bragging, given the extremely tense situation on the ground for the Ukrainians, and Moscow’s historic gain of nearly 4,000km2 on its enemy’s territory in 2024.
The rest after this ad
Currently, the thorny issue concerns the famous deployment of a European peacekeeping force, desired by Trump. It is out of the question for the new president to pay from the Americans’ pockets and he has every interest in pushing in this direction. However, the deployment of Europeans on Ukrainian soil is the subject of a categorical refusal from the head of the Kremlin. It is a new red line like membership in the transatlantic alliance. However, there are already plans for a major financial contribution and the involvement of certain EU countries, still ready to pay, in this peacekeeping force of 40 to 50,000 soldiers in a neutral zone and territory defined under a banner that remains to be chosen. General Kellogg, the United States envoy for Russia and Ukraine, has held more than four meetings with Russian officials since last November but there has been a total blockage. Currently, the peace plan is not made public but according to the incoming administration, Putin will have his back against the wall and will have no choice but to accept as a last resort.
Why according to him? Because there are three weeks left to “settle” the matter for the Trump administration, which needs a formal official agreement for a ceasefire from both parties just as President Trump takes office. In the event that Russia does not comply with a single proposal in Trump’s peace plan, the US government has already threatened to increase its military aid to Ukraine by 4 or 5 times. If Moscow persists, Washington would overwhelm Putin with so many weapons that Ukraine would win by a clear “KO”. The US government would be prepared to provide Ukraine with hundreds of operational, fully modernized F-16s if necessary, and former US Air Force pilots would be allowed to work for the Ukrainian military.
The desired ceasefire before January 20 would in any case only be the beginning: on the basis of a freezing of the positions of the two parties on the ground, only then will negotiations begin on possible annexations. This shows that the history that is being written always depends on a few things: we must conclude that Trump could have financed support for Ukraine in an endless war as he likes to call them, but that he did not. would happen if Moscow did not accept its peace plan to put a definitive end to a war which could “celebrate” its 3rd anniversary on February 22. Donald Trump would then be in office.
* Doctor in political science, Arab world and geopolitics researcher, teacher in international relations at IHECS (Brussels), associated with the CNAM Paris (Defense Security Team), at the Institute of Applied Geopolitics Studies (IEGA Paris), at Nordic Center for Conflict Transformation (NCCT Stockholm) and the Geostrategic Observatory of Geneva (Switzerland).
Belgium
