President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to end the conflict in Ukraine on” Day One” of his subsequent management on the campaign trail in 2024.
More than 100 days afterward, the battle rages on. The senator has since claimed that his statement was exaggerated and made “in jest,” arguing that three decades is not quite the same as a three-year conflict. The Trump administration’s efforts to end the conflict have seen the U. S.’s place regarding Ukraine change drastically, with negotiations playing a key role in upending the international order.
Although Trump’s approach to conversations has his fair share of supporters and critics, most people concur that his strategy has altered the United States ‘ position in the world, for better or worse.
Negotiation improvement
Trump quickly reaffirmed the Biden administration’s place that the conflict must now be viewed as a fundamental moral crusade following his inauguration on January 20. He opened direct conversations with the Kremlin, scaled back U. S. assistance to Ukraine, and began speaking of the U. S. place regarding Ukraine more transactionally, aiming to get a profit on the tens of billions of dollars given in support.
The first phone call between the heads of state of Russia and the United States since the start of the conflict in Ukraine was held on February 12 between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had a one-hour and a half-long talk. Trump described the phone contact as “highly successful” in a blog on Truth Social, with a commendable voice that marked a climate of relations with the Kremlin. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, John Ratcliffe, former chief of state, Mike Waltz, and adviser and special minister Steve Witkoff were given the task of starting the peace talks.
The phone call and ensuing discussions immediately became a tender point between the U. S., Europe, and Ukraine. The former two resisted the illiberal social outlook that had characterized Western positions at the start of the war, in conflict with the new position of the United States. The Trump administration ruled out Ukraine’s entrance to NATO and U. S. backed protection guarantees, seeking rather to reference the U. S. to Ukraine through financial investments, generally through a package that would provide Washington access to the country’s unique earth minerals.
A fiery Feb. 28 Oval Office meeting between Trump, Zelensky, and Vice President JD Vance sparked plans for the mineral deal. The public portion of the meeting escalated into a shouting match, ending in Zelensky being kicked out of the White House without a mineral deal being signed. After the U.S. stopped providing any assistance to Ukraine, allies had to work in the background to stabilize relations. Though their relationship improved somewhat, it has remained tense. Trump and Zelensky had a brief conversation last week at Pope Francis’s funeral.
The last month of Trump’s first 100 days was characterized by a seesaw of blame, with the president expressing alternating between directing his public outrage at Putin and Zelensky. High-profile discussions between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have resulted in ceasefire plans, but their exclusive positions have prevented a breakthrough.
Russia-Ukraine peace report card: C
Experts have divergent opinions about how far the negotiations are, primarily because of how secret they are. Frank Gaffney, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under President Ronald Reagan and President of the Institute for the American Future, told the Washington Examiner that a comprehensive analysis of negotiations is difficult as the deliberations are “mostly obscured from public eye”.
There is a lot of heat and not much light in my opinion. I think that the posturing of the various parties in these negotiations, I’m speaking particularly the foreign ones, obviously has made it very difficult to assess, and I think the administration would acknowledge this”, he said, adding that the administration seems to be “evolving as it has interacted with the various parties”.
In his initial assessment, Clifford May, the founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, was less kind in nature.
” You can’t say they’ve gone well since Putin is still attacking civilians with missiles and drones”, he said of the negotiations generally.
However, according to May, Trump’s recent public rants against Putin appear to be more consistent than those against Zelensky, indicating a wider shift in policy.
” I do think what needs to happen now, and I’m encouraged and hoping that President Trump is recognizing this … that the only way to get Putin to agree to a ceasefire, which I think President Trump wants, is to put some serious pressure on Putin. He has put a lot of pressure on Zelensky, according to May. ” He hasn’t put serious pressure on Putin, yet he can do so. He himself mentioned the possibility of second sanctions.
Gaffney argued that Trump’s frequent changes in attitude regarding whether he’s more angry with Zelensky or Putin are largely irrelevant, as the truly important factors in a peace deal aren’t tactical but strategic.
Is there a ground for a deal that would actually end Vladimir Putin’s ambitions, not just toward Ukraine, but toward other potential targets of opportunity as he sees it? is the strategic question. And if the answer to that is, at best,’ it’s not clear,’ and at worst,’ very, very low likelihood,’ then that’s got to be a source of overarching frustration for Trump, because he doesn’t just want a deal. He desires the end of the conflict. And ostensibly, others do as well, but not as much as he wants it, it seems”, he said.
The first actual discussion of a ceasefire is one of the most promising developments from negotiations. Moscow and Kyiv haven’t even entertained the idea of a ceasefire since the opening months of the conflict, with both viewing total victory as the only possibility. Both parties began to express their desire for a limited and total ceasefire in public at the beginning of the Trump administration.
Gaffney speculated that this development might not be a major marker of peace but rather posturing from the belligerents. He claimed that Selensky and Putin are primarily concerned with Trump’s perception of them as a positive party in peace negotiations.
” I’m not sure that we’ve seen anything, yet, that events is an actual bottom line from Putin or, for that matter, Zelensky”, Gaffney said. ” I believe they have made a clear decision to be seen as constructive, rather than simply preventing some sort of negotiated outcome here,” she said. But it’s not clear to me, particularly on the part of the Russians, that that’s anything other than just buying time to continue mopping up what it can”.
May uses two examples of the United States ‘ ability to operate to demonstrate that the goal of a ceasefire is still worthwhile for the time being.
” The Korean War never ended. It’s been simply frozen and placed on ice for about 53 years. And over those 53 years, what’s happened? South Korea has evolved into a prosperous and democratic ally for the United States. North Korea remains what it’s been, a hell hole, anti-American, and closely aligned at this point with Moscow, with Beijing, and with Tehran”, he said.
May cited the Soviet Union’s annexation of Lithuania and the Baltic nations as an example of territorial dealing.
” The U. S. never recognized]the annexation ] as legitimate. That helped, May said, because those nations could emerge quickly and easily after the Soviet Union was overthrown with U.S. recognition as independent nations.
A ceasefire is particularly difficult due to a lack of trust from both parties. Moscow and Kyiv worry that a ceasefire would allow the opposing side to “retrench, regroup, and then renew the war on more favorable terms.” This mutual concern makes it “very, very difficult to take seriously” talks of a ceasefire, Gaffney argued.
Gaffney declined to respond when asked how Trump’s handling of the Ukraine War was evaluated on a report card. He argued that due to the secretive nature of negotiations and the relatively little time that has passed, a fair report card grading is “impossible at the moment”.
May referred to Trump’s evolving position as “gentleman’s C,” giving the latter a “gentleman’s C” while mentioning the lack of an upcoming peace deal in the conflict.
” Part of it is that we haven’t finished this semester. We must pass the midterm exam, and I must read the term papers before I can grade a student. But I understand it’s 100 days … so let me just say this: I’m happy to revise the grade as before the end of the semester”, he said.
Handling European alliances: B.
One of the biggest changes brought about by Trump has been his new approach to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the U. S.’s European allies. Some European leaders and analysts expressed concern about the end of U.S. influence and the possibility of Europe completely turning away from the U.S. following Vance’s speech in Munich in February, in which he criticized European allies for not pulling their weight in defense spending. This argument was backed up by the European Union’s announcement of a major military spending plan and individual announcements from major European powers such as Germany.
However, May and Gaffney rejected this possibility, arguing instead that it was just rhetoric from the Europeans. Both said the EU can’t stand on its own and has nowhere else to go.
” Color me skeptical of NATO’s constant thrashing.” The truth of the matter is, NATO’s got nowhere else to go. They rely on the United States to serve as an ally and, in the end, as an essential component of their national defense, Gaffney said.
” I don’t think serious people in Europe think that cozying up to the Chinese, or participating in their belt Road Initiative, or making themselves more dependent on the Chinese, whether it’s for export markets or whether it’s for imports or whether it’s for critical supply chains, is actually a good idea. He continued, claiming that Europeans would be” crazy” if they united themselves with China over the U.S.” I just find it hard to believe that’s a widespread belief, even among elites in European countries.”
He dismissed talks of Trump signaling the end of American influence in Europe as “histrionics”.
May echoed similar sentiments, claiming that Europe would need decades and a significant change in policy to consider replacing the United States as “leader of the free world.”
” There is no European power, or collection of European powers, that can take the leadership in a real way over the near term — 10 years from now, 20 years from now, who knows? I still believe that America is absolutely essential for the future of free societies everywhere and in Europe,” he said.
” Europe is not prepared, at this point, to stand on its own without America. Simply put, it’s not realistic,” May continued. ” If you, if you’re spending 1.5 % of your GDP on defense, and you need to be spending 3 %, 4 %, 5 % … that’s a good goal. However, you can’t accomplish it over the next six months or even the following year. You can’t do it, and there’s a lot of restructuring you have to do financially, militarily, and other ways to get up to where you need to be and to have the defense industrial base that you don’t have”.
Gaffney and May largely praised the president’s shrewd treatment of his European allies in light of discussions of decoupling from the United States, which were deemed unrealistic.
” I do think that what Trump has shown himself capable of doing … I guess the colloquial expression would be ‘ tough love,’ is getting these guys braced up. And I believe that will ultimately result in our shared benefit,” Gaffney said.
He said the U. S.’s European allies “know that they’re dealing with a very formidable leader of a very powerful nation, and I think at the end of the day, they’re going to realize that that’s the side they want to be on, not the side of our enemies”.
TRUMP TACKLES BORDER BUT HITS SETBACKS ON DEPORTING IMMIGRANTS 100-DAY REPORT CARD
Gaffney and May also dismissed the characterization that Trump had fundamentally changed the U. S. led order, characterizing his overhaul of U. S. alliances as a “reworking” rather than a revolution.
May gave Trump a” B” for his handling of Europe, NATO, and the EU, with the same caveat that the grade could change with further developments, while Gaffney once more declined to give a letter grade.
