- The former president’s anticipated second term could reshape the dynamics of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and test alliances in NATO.
Donald Trump is on the brink of a historic return to the White House in January 2025, a victory likely to impact several domestic and international issues. With the GOP poised to control the Senate and potentially the House of Representatives, Trump is anticipated to face minimal resistance in Congress, setting the stage for bold moves. The most immediate foreign policy question is Ukraine, where Trump has expressed a desire to end the ongoing conflict swiftly. However, his approach, heavily scrutinized due to past comments on NATO and Kyiv, could shift the power dynamics in ways that neither Moscow nor Kyiv fully anticipate.
Throughout his campaign, Trump repeatedly asserted he would bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine, even boasting that he could accomplish this “within 24 hours.” While this time frame seems ambitious, if not unlikely, it underscores Trump’s preference for pragmatic deal-making over prolonged U.S. entanglement in foreign conflicts. Trump’s promises to expedite peace talks have cast a spotlight on his potential strategies, many of which may challenge traditional Western support structures for Ukraine.
Trump’s anticipated approach would likely see him advocating for an immediate ceasefire along existing frontlines, forcing both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin into high-stakes negotiations. In such a deal, Kyiv would face considerable pressure to make concessions, particularly regarding territory under Russian control. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, along with regions seized since the 2022 invasion, could be a sticking point, and Trump might endorse a settlement that effectively solidifies Russia’s control over these areas.
The election results mark a potential turning point for Zelenskyy, whose government relies on substantial U.S. military and financial aid. Despite congratulating Trump on his victory, Zelenskyy is likely grappling with the uncertainty of Trump’s approach to the conflict. Under Trump’s leadership, the question isn’t merely whether U.S. aid to Ukraine will continue but rather under what conditions and with what limitations.
Trump has publicly referred to Zelenskyy as “the greatest salesman,” implying skepticism over Ukraine’s receipt of billions in aid. His return to office may usher in demands for transparency, stricter conditions, or a shift in aid priorities, raising anxiety within Kyiv. Ukrainian officials may soon find themselves torn between concessions to appease Trump and the need to uphold their national interests and sovereignty.
Trump’s longstanding ambivalence towards NATO complicates the scenario further. Throughout his first term, he often voiced dissatisfaction with the alliance, suggesting that European countries had not contributed their fair share. This rhetoric resurfaced during his recent campaign, indicating that a renewed Trump administration could once again use NATO as leverage in negotiations.
By potentially hinting at a reduction of U.S. support for NATO, Trump might push European leaders to support a peace deal more favorable to Moscow. The Kremlin, for its part, may seek assurances that Ukraine will not join NATO, a key demand of Putin’s since the onset of hostilities. Such a scenario would align Trump with Moscow’s security demands, representing a potential win for Putin on the geopolitical front.
However, Trump’s volatile approach—an asset in deal-making but a liability in diplomacy—introduces a level of unpredictability that may be equally unsettling for the Kremlin. Putin is not in an immediate position of weakness; Russia has secured a foothold in parts of Ukraine and has reinforced its military ranks with North Korean troops deployed to the Kursk region. For Trump to compel Putin into negotiations, he would need to adopt a strategy that incentivizes the Russian leader to agree to a compromise without appearing weak domestically.
In the lead-up to Trump’s inauguration, both Ukraine and Russia are likely to escalate their efforts to gain leverage. Should Trump make it clear that a settlement is on the horizon, each side would push for a stronger negotiating position. Russia might increase its offensives in the eastern Donbas region and intensify attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure to gain control of critical resources and fortifications. Similarly, Ukraine may seek to defend its remaining territories vigorously, aiming to push back Russian forces and weaken their hold on contested areas.
There is also the possibility of further North Korean involvement in the conflict. As Russian forces face constraints due to sanctions and resource limitations, the addition of North Korean soldiers could bolster Russia’s manpower, particularly in defensive operations in border regions like Kursk. This internationalization of the conflict complicates Trump’s plan, as it introduces actors beyond the immediate control of the U.S. or Russia.
While Trump’s intentions for a quick peace settlement are clear, his methods may involve a combination of promises and threats to achieve his desired outcome. Trump could condition future aid to Ukraine on Zelenskyy’s compliance with negotiations, implicitly threatening to withdraw support altogether if Kyiv resists his terms. This tactic would leave Ukraine in a vulnerable position, as U.S. backing has been instrumental in enabling its military to resist Russian advances.
Alternatively, Trump might increase pressure on Russia by lifting existing constraints on U.S. and allied weapons, allowing Kyiv to deploy these assets more freely, including in strikes deep into Russian territory. Such a move would significantly alter the battlefield calculus, potentially reversing some of Russia’s recent gains and extending the conflict into previously unaffected Russian areas. For Putin, the threat of an emboldened Ukrainian military, bolstered by U.S. resources, could push him towards a negotiated settlement, albeit one that preserves Russian interests.
This dual-edged approach would offer Trump a means of controlling both sides while maintaining the appearance of a peace broker. However, it also carries the risk of prolonged hostilities, as neither Moscow nor Kyiv would be keen on immediate concessions without guaranteed, favorable terms.
Trump’s position on NATO has already raised concerns among European leaders who remember his calls for reducing U.S. involvement in the alliance. Should Trump use NATO as a bargaining chip in his efforts to mediate the Ukraine conflict, Europe’s willingness to follow his lead may be limited. Many European countries remain staunch supporters of Ukraine, having witnessed the direct impact of Russian aggression on European security.
A push from Trump to sideline NATO or pressure its members into a deal with Russia could fracture the alliance, particularly if countries like Germany and France resist any arrangement that appears to reward Russian aggression. European allies may even seek alternative security arrangements, aware of the repercussions a weakened NATO could have on the continent’s long-term stability.
Trump’s victory signals a potential shift in U.S.-Russia relations. Where previous administrations enforced sanctions and implemented containment strategies, Trump might adopt a more conciliatory approach to Moscow, aligning with his “America First” ethos. During his first term, Trump sought personal diplomacy with Putin, a strategy he could revive to mitigate the risks of broader escalation.
However, any rapprochement with Russia may face opposition within the U.S., particularly from bipartisan factions concerned about Russian interference in global affairs. While a Republican-controlled Congress might endorse Trump’s diplomacy, some members may balk at ceding influence in Eastern Europe. Thus, Trump’s approach to Russia could stir internal dissent, complicating his domestic and foreign policy goals.
