UJ
—
Campaigning with bravado for peace deals, President Donald Trump has discovered that such promises lack immediate results as conflicts continue to unfold.
While making minimal progress on his Ukraine peace initiative Tuesday, yet another ceasefire—one he claimed to influence—collapsed. Israel intensified its offensive against Hamas in Gaza, resulting in significant civilian casualties.
Trump’s call with the resistant Russian President Vladimir Putin, coinciding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s escalation of war efforts, underscored competing political priorities that may overshadow Trump’s ambitions.
The challenging geopolitical climate hampers Trump’s aspirations for a legacy centered around global peace, which he envisioned achieving upon his return to the presidency.
Signs are increasingly indicating that Trump’s ambitions extend beyond merely establishing a lasting peace to resolving conflict.
Accounts of his discussion with Putin have heightened concerns among Ukraine’s government and its European partners that Trump views the war as merely a backdrop to his broader Russian engagement strategy. This perspective explains his tough stance on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky until he conceded to Trump’s 30-day ceasefire, while he offered accolades to Putin for his lack of cooperation.
Meanwhile, the U.S.’s support of Netanyahu’s renewed aerial assaults on Gaza has thwarted efforts by Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, to negotiate hostage releases and a secondary agreement aimed at ending hostilities—a critical step towards achieving a landmark peace accord between Israel and Arab nations. Additionally, a new U.S. military campaign against Iran-linked Houthi rebels in Yemen signals that Trump is also prioritizing increased pressure on Iran, pushing it towards dialogue over its nuclear ambitions or undermining its regional affiliates ahead of potential Israeli or U.S. action against its nuclear facilities.
Now back in office, Trump has criticized U.S. allies in Europe and made expansionist claims concerning Canada, Greenland, and Panama. However, the pivotal foreign policy question during his second term remains whether he will exert pressure on either Putin or Netanyahu. His clear ambition to secure the Nobel Peace Prize may hinge on this choice.
Trump maintains that a peace deal with Russia and Ukraine will materialize swiftly
The White House expressed optimism following the president’s call with Putin. However, the primary takeaway was Russia’s firm opposition to an immediate cessation of hostilities proposed by the U.S.
According to the White House, the Russians agreed to refrain from attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructures, with Ukraine also consenting to this understanding. Nonetheless, the term “ceasefire” used by the White House exaggerates the scope of this 30-day pause, as there are no restrictions on Russia continuing to strike other military and civilian targets in Ukraine. Indeed, Ukrainian officials reported a drone attack targeting a hospital in the Sumy region on Tuesday night.
Russia’s account of the discussions differed slightly from the U.S. narrative, using the phrase “energy infrastructure” to characterize the deal, signifying a potentially narrower interpretation than that of the U.S.
Nevertheless, the administration asserts this is merely the initial move, with further discussions anticipated in the Middle East to establish a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea as well as a comprehensive ceasefire and a durable peace agreement.
“It was an extremely productive call,” Trump proclaimed, reaffirming his belief that only he could have achieved such an outcome and forecasting swift progress ahead, despite the obstacles introduced by Putin. “If I weren’t here, he would never have done it,” he remarked in an interview with the Washington Examiner.
“The next phase will be a complete ceasefire and an agreement,” Trump stated. “I anticipate it will proceed rather quickly.”
There is a rationale for amplifying the incremental progress at the onset of a peace dialogue to foster momentum and increase the cost for parties contemplating a withdrawal. Thus, Trump’s optimism may not be unfounded. However, his self-aggrandizement might serve as a political maneuver to mask the shortcomings of his overall ceasefire initiative, considering Putin’s recent battlefield successes. The U.S. president also appears to be striving to uphold the increasingly fragile narrative that he is an unmatched negotiator currently securing significant foreign policy victories.
Nevertheless, Trump did manage to achieve one of the first commitments to reduce the intensity of hostilities since the Russian invasion began three years ago. Should he succeed in brokering peace, it would represent a monumental accomplishment that could preserve countless lives.
However, his personal credibility is at stake—relying on a Russian leader known for disregarding agreements and ceasefires and who has consistently outmaneuvered every U.S. president over the past 25 years.
No amount of positive rhetoric can mask Putin’s outright refusal to endorse the proposed 30-day complete ceasefire plan. Instead, the Russian president unveiled a fresh set of conditions that would be unacceptable for Ukraine to accept, which may intensify European anxieties that any peace on the Kremlin’s terms would contribute to an unavoidable future conflict.
“In simple terms, Putin turned down the proposal that was offered,” said William Browder, head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign and a prominent critic of Putin, during a discussion on UJ International.
Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who counts himself as a friend of Trump while also being a staunch supporter of Zelensky, expressed an even harsher criticism. “What a surprise—Putin rejects an unconditional ceasefire,” Johnson remarked on X. “He intends to continue bombing and killing innocent Ukrainians. He desires Ukraine to be disarmed and neutralized, effectively turning it into a vassal state of Russia. He is not engaging in negotiations; he’s mocking us.”
A Kremlin summary of the dialogue with Trump indicated that Putin advocated for a “complete cessation of military support and intelligence to Kiev.” This strategy is a cunning request intended to persuade Trump towards initiatives he has previously pursued—if only temporarily—to compel Ukraine to accept the ceasefire after Zelensky’s unsuccessful visit to the Oval Office. The Russian president is likely also aiming to create a schism between Trump and Western European allies, who would be alarmed by the prospect of halting aid to Ukraine, which could potentially leave it vulnerable to Russian incursions after a peace settlement.
Putin’s agreement to cease attacks on energy infrastructure signifies his intention to avoid alienating Trump—however, it also appears to be a strategic concession. Yet, this could be less substantial than it seems and may serve as yet another enticement for Russia. Beth Sanner, a former senior official at U.S. intelligence, discussed on “UJ News Central”: “What did they actually agree to? These are exactly the sectors where Ukraine has found success during this conflict—striking all of Russia’s energy capabilities. So, singling out this one element is indeed a gain.” Sanner elaborated, “These stipulations are dictated by the Kremlin; they do not reflect American standards. Clearly, it is Putin who is steering this arrangement.”
Both the Kremlin and the White House provided some insights into broader objectives driving their discussions surrounding Ukraine.
Both parties acknowledged discussing wider global challenges, including nuclear proliferation, and envisioned a new relationship characterized by economic collaborations that might yield mutual benefits. This highlights Trump’s ambition to reintegrate Putin into the global community—without requiring him to face consequences for his unprovoked and unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation. This unity between the two nations serves as a striking reminder of Trump’s inclination to disregard U.S. allies while engaging with a sworn adversary of the United States.
In its readout, the White House stated the leaders “agreed that Iran must never be positioned to threaten Israel.” This statement could hint at a significant consideration, as a potential aim of a U.S. rapprochement with Russia might involve persuading Russia to reconsider its close alliance with Tehran—a component of an informal coalition that increasingly includes other U.S. adversaries, such as North Korea and China.
The failure of the ceasefire in Gaza illustrates the challenges the administration has thus far encountered in transforming preliminary peace advances into more durable agreements. This pattern could bode poorly for the Ukraine peace negotiations.
Numerous U.S. analysts have suggested that Netanyahu had no immediate desire to progress beyond the recently lapsed initial stage of the ceasefire established to end the conflict ignited by Hamas’s massacre of Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023.
According to UJ’s tracking, Tuesday marked the deadliest day in Gaza in over 15 months, following multiple strikes by Israeli forces. Palestinian officials reported that more than 400 individuals lost their lives.
Netanyahu affirmed that he escalated operations due to Hamas’s failure to release the remaining hostages or accept a U.S. proposition to prolong the Gaza ceasefire, despite a temporary halt in Israeli military actions. Conversely, Hamas contended that it did not dismiss the U.S. proposal and sought an extension of the ceasefire. However, the hardline Islamist group held little motivation to release the remaining hostages, who serve as a final, cynical negotiating tool in a conflict that Netanyahu insists will continue until Hamas is eradicated.
“This is merely the start,” stated the Israeli prime minister on Tuesday.
Netanyahu, currently facing corruption charges, gained immediate political traction from his decision to reignite the conflict. Far-right Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Gvir announced his intention to rejoin the government along with his Otzma Yehudit, or Jewish Power, party. This development bolstered the Likud prime minister’s political standing ahead of challenging budget discussions that could jeopardize his government’s stability.
The escalation of hostilities also resulted in a temporary delay of Netanyahu’s corruption trial. Many of his opponents believe he has intentionally extended the conflict in Gaza to evade a judicial process that could lead to imprisonment if he is found guilty.
Like Putin, who views the war in Ukraine as a pivotal cause, Netanyahu may find it necessary to maintain ongoing conflict to secure his grip on power. However, Trump, his fellow authoritarian, has his own overwhelming political motivations to silence the guns.
Eventually, the U.S. president may confront difficult political decisions that he has thus far postponed.
