Donald Trump’s potential role as a “peacemaker” in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a subject worth watching, especially when considering his underlying political and economic motives. Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised a swift resolution to the war, claiming he could bring both parties to the table through direct negotiation. In recent months, he has doubled down on this pledge, even if it means sidelining NATO’s collective commitments and straining the close transatlantic ties that flourished under Joe Biden.
Noble as it may sound, Trump’s promise is not without self-interest. Should peace be reached, the US could reset its economic ties with Russia, gaining access to cheap Russian oil-a strategic advantage in offsetting losses from trade wars with China and others. At the same time, the US would have an opportunity to tap into Ukraine’s rich mineral resources. Minerals like uranium, lithium, and gallium are crucial for future defense technologies. Clearly, peace in Ukraine is as much about political gains as it is about economic interests for Trump.
But how realistic is Trump’s plan? Given the current state of the conflict, the most likely scenario is a semi-permanent ceasefire. This would come at the expense of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, with Russia likely to retain control over the five regions it currently occupies. Ukraine would also be pressured to drop its NATO membership ambitions. Even if a peace deal is signed, it may not last. Trust between the two countries is at rock bottom, with past failures like the 2025 “Easter Ceasefire” and the 2014-2015 Minsk Agreements serving as cautionary tales. Still, in the end, Trump may walk away with the deal he wants.
(ZM)
[📸 via ABC News]
#CognitioInsight#strategic#thinktank
