The Ceasefire Gamble: Can Trump Leverage Putin for Peace in Ukraine?
Ukraine's agreement to back a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire in its ongoing conflict with Russia has brought the focus on Moscow's potential responses and the possible leverage the Trump administration may possess over Vladimir Putin. While many have speculated on what leverage Putin could exert over Trump, the more pressing question is what Trump can do to sway Putin.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated on Wednesday that the US was poised to engage with Russia, hoping for a constructive response. However, the Kremlin has stressed the need for a full briefing from Washington before submitting a response, with press secretary Dmitry Peskov cautioning the media not to jump to conclusions regarding the potential for a direct conversation between Putin and Trump.
Despite Rubio's optimism, it became evident that Putin was intent on extracting maximum benefit from potential discussions about a ceasefire, which, even in its preliminary form, presented challenges for Russia. A senior Kremlin source acknowledged this by stating that while Russia is in favor of a truce, it requires substantial guarantees from the United States. The source emphasized, "Yes, we are in favor of a truce with both hands, but we need at least framework guarantees, and at least from the United States."
The underlying reality is that, despite significant combat losses, economic struggles, and international diplomatic isolation, Russia perceives itself as achieving victory in the war. Moscow views a ceasefire as advantageous for Ukraine, even as its military continues to experience modest advances under severe costs. This belief complicates the negotiations frame, as Russia expects its position to be acknowledged in discussions regarding a possible ceasefire.
Rubio's admission that territorial concessions were already broached during talks with the Ukrainian delegation in Jeddah earlier this week raises questions about what Trump can genuinely offer Putin. The potential for increased US sanctions and tariffs against Russia—measures Trump has claimed to be considering—may not push Moscow significantly, given that Russian exports to the US plummeted by more than 80% last year, reflecting the lowest levels of trade since 1992. The effectiveness of such sanctions, particularly the cessation of existing exemptions that allow Russian banks to manage energy export payments, remains ambiguous.
The crux of the issue lies in what incentives the US could present to Russia. The current US administration's engagement with Moscow marks a departure from the rigid diplomatic isolation championed during the Biden era. Economically, Russia remains at a vulnerable juncture as the costs of warfare and sanctions steadily erode its growth, with high interest rates constraining recovery.
To incentivize a ceasefire, the Biden administration could contemplate lifting some banking sanctions and allowing access to Western technology, all while recognizing that other sanctions from Ukraine-supporting nations may persist. However, the intricacies escalate when considering Putin's long-standing demands, including the demilitarization of Ukraine, a commitment from Ukraine to abstain from NATO membership, and retaining control over annexed territories like Crimea—conditions unlikely to resonate with Ukraine's European allies.
Trump has displayed a tendency to exert pressure on Ukraine, illustrated by his recent meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which may have given Putin an impression of Trump's diminished leverage over Russia. John Lough, an associate fellow at Chatham House, cautioned last year that Trump might find that Putin perceives an advantage over US relations, given a belief that the West's influence is waning.
This complex landscape leaves one significant bargaining chip—the enhancement of US military support to Ukraine. However, especially following the temporary suspension of such support, it's evident that this approach would likely be Trump's least favored option as he navigates the delicate balance between appeasement and opposition in the geopolitical arena.
Related Sources: