Donald Trump's participation in the conflict mediation attempts in Ukraine has not only proved inefficient, but contributed, in the opinion of some of the Western analysts, to the aggravation of the situation on the front. Although the White House leader declared in the campaign that he could stop the war “in 24 hours”, the geopolitical reality at contradiction.
US president. Donald Trump/Photo: Profimedia
In a comment published in The Telegraph, Con Coughlin, editor for international business and defense, argues that Trump's interventions have been noted for incoherence than by efficiency. The oscillating attitude towards Vladimir Putin – when praised, when criticizing – eroded any real chance of influence on Moscow's decisions.
“Trump called Putin, alternatively, an” intelligent “and” absolutely crazy “man, without being able to build a coherent foreign policy line,” Coughlin notes.
Hazarded promises and negotiations without content
In a recent statement, Trump warned that Russia “plays with fire” continuing attacks on Ukraine. However, as the British publisher points out, warnings do not mean anything if they are not supported by a firm Washington position in relation to the Kremlin.
The biggest vulnerability of Trump's position, Coughlin shows, is his declared availability to accept territorial concessions from Ukraine, in the name of peace. A plan to cease the fire outlined by his team was widely criticized because he would reward Russian aggression.
Despite the public rhetoric, the Trump administration would have begun to understand that Moscow has no real interest. In a recent conversation with Putin, Trump claimed that “a certain progress was made.” However, according to American diplomatic sources quoted by The Telegraph, the information communicated to European allies has transmitted another reality: the Russian leader is not interested in stopping the conflict, convinced that he can win military.
A strategy that encouraged aggression
Trump seems to have realized late that the Kremlin leader “plays” with his good intentions, and lately his speech has tightened, calling a little “absolutely crazy”.
Coughlin goes on and states that Trump's performance in this file was not only inefficient, but “counterproductive”. His hesitations have fueled the perception of the Kremlin that the West is lacking in determination, thus contributing to the recent success of the Russian troops on the front.
“Even a notorious narcissist, such as Trump, should recognize the fact that his intervention has worsened the situation, instead of improving“, Notes the author.
It's still not too late
However, the British editorialist points out that Trump, if he really would like to influence the fate of the war, still has pressure tools.
Among them: the threat with the imposition of secondary sanctions to block Russia's oil exports through illicit channels – an essential source of war financing. Given that the Russian economy already feels the decrease in oil income, such measures could have a major impact on Moscow's war capacity.
Moreover, if the Washington administration would approve the delivery of advanced Ukraine – including long -range missiles and modern anti -aircraft defense systems – Kiev could change the dynamics of the conflict. “It is essential that little to understand that the use of nuclear weapons is a clear red line for the United States”, Points out Coughlin.
Although it seems that the Russian leader successfully manipulated Trump in the failed attempts to obtain an armistice, the US president still has levers to influence the course of the war – if he will give up the theatrical approaches and will hold concrete actions.
The same conclusion is also shared by David Ignatius, an editorialist at The Washington Post, who appreciates that the chances of peace in Ukraine are today farther than they were at the beginning of Trump's term. Instead of contributing to the resolution of the conflict, his diplomatic efforts seem to have led to his deepening.
