In the realm of Donald Trump, everything comes with a cost.
Emotions hold no sway in his political dealings. Shared values won’t secure funding for military support. The US president shows little concern over who claims the war-torn territories of eastern Ukraine, as long as access to the valuable rare earth minerals beneath them remains available.
The peace negotiated by Trump won’t be rooted in justice. There is no inherent moral compass guiding him; it’s merely about who “got it done.” Trump has indicated his readiness to push Ukraine and Europe for concessions to persuade Russia to sign an agreement.
What remains for him is to determine a cost.
“I’m just here to try and get peace,” Trump declared from the Oval Office, where he routinely outlines policy. “I don’t care so much about anything other than I want to stop having millions of people killed.”
It’s challenging to articulate how significant a shift this represents in US support for Ukraine, which has long centered on aiding the country in its self-defense, rather than achieving victory in the conflict.
The Biden administration focused on managing the immediate impacts of Russian aggression. Now, Trump claims he will offer a solution. But it’s an unwelcome prescription: cease resistance.
Since Russia’s large-scale invasion in 2022, the mantra in the Oval Office has been “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Biden’s officials consistently reaffirmed that Ukraine would decide when it was ready to engage in negotiations.
However, that was the situation before the US elections. The pivotal issue wasn’t about Ukraine’s military resources or weapon supplies; it was rooted in local political dynamics, the price of eggs in Pennsylvania. The Biden administration may have betrayed Ukraine most by losing the US elections, effectively ceding its second front to an “America first” ideology.
“We’re the thing that’s holding it back, and frankly, we’ll go as long as we have to go, because we’re not going to let the other happen,” Trump remarked, possibly offering the sole silver lining in his comments on Monday by indicating he wouldn’t let Ukraine completely fall apart. “But President Putin wants that peace now, and that’s good, and he didn’t want to have peace with Biden.”
Some observers in Ukraine and Russia might think that the US president harbors a more profound strategy, perhaps to unify Europe and then apply collective pressure on Russia, all while trying to lower oil prices. However, based on his actions in Gaza and within the United States, it’s probable that no such grand plan exists.
Choosing Steve Witkoff, his preferred dealmaker responsible for the Gaza hostage-for-ceasefire negotiation, over the more hawkish Gen Keith Kellogg signals that the process will be devoid of sentiment. Just another real estate negotiation.
Currently, many in Europe are speculating whether Trump is about to present them with a fait accompli regarding their eastern border, potentially aiming to involve European troops in Ukraine under a security agreement negotiated solely between Moscow and Washington, without NATO’s protection.
“What’s left to negotiate?” one European official texted, labeling it a “surrender.”
In fact, that was merely Trump’s initial proposal.
Russia has expressed a desire for Trump to make more concessions. In a statement, President Vladimir Putin indicated that he wants the agreement to address the “origins of the conflict,” which he previously claimed include Ukraine’s pro-Western orientation and NATO expansions in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
He might aim to revert the situation to how it was, suggested another European official, including demands for the withdrawal of US forces stationed in the Baltics, Poland, and other former communist nations, raising fears of further Russian territorial advances without US troops to ensure their defense.
This scenario appeared increasingly feasible on Thursday when Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, informed NATO allies that reducing US troop levels in Europe could be part of any agreement.
Essentially, Trump is negotiating with Europe, rather than with Russia. Europe has made its counterproposal: treat us as partners and include us in the discussions.
“We shouldn’t rule anything out before the negotiations have even begun,” stated Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, prior to the NATO meeting on Thursday. “It’s clear that any agreement made behind our backs will not be successful. You need the Europeans, you need the Ukrainians.”
Ultimately, it depends on what Trump intends to do next, as Hegseth made clear. “Everything is on the table,” he stated. “What he chooses to allow or disallow in his discussions with Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy is at the discretion of the leader of the free world: President Trump.”
The pressing question remains: who comprises this so-called free world now, and what is the cost of entry?
