The Complexity of Resolving the Ukraine Conflict: A Look at Trump, Putin, and Geopolitical Realities

In the lead-up to the last American elections, former President Donald Trump confidently claimed he could resolve the Ukraine conflict in just 24 hours. However, as time passed and Moscow showed no signs of backing down from its aggressive stance, Trump later suggested that his remarks were somewhat sarcastic. This statement, made during his 2024 presidential campaign, was based on an assumption of a mutual rapport with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that charm alone would not sway Putin, particularly given his longstanding objective of annexing Russian-speaking territories in eastern Ukraine. The historical roots of this conflict stretch back centuries and involve the systematic Russification of Ukraine, initiated during Tsar Peter I's reign. In 1720, Peter I issued a decree aimed at eradicating Ukrainian language and culture in printed religious texts. The Soviet era saw an intensification of these efforts, often leading to many Ukrainian speakers identifying more with Russian culture than their own ethnic roots. When Ukraine gained independence in 1991, it declared Ukrainian as its sole official language. However, in 2012, then-President Viktor Yanukovych introduced a law allowing the use of regional languages, most notably Russian, in areas where it was predominantly spoken, especially in the Donbass region. This legislation sowed the seeds for Moscow's claims on these territories following its annexation of Crimea in 2014, an act that occurred amidst a lack of decisive action from the West. The war that erupted on February 24, 2022, was expected by both Russia and the West to conclude swiftly in Moscow's favor, given the stark disparities in military and economic capabilities. Yet, President Volodymyr Zelensky's pro-European administration managed to galvanize national resistance and attract substantial support from both NATO and the European Union. As a result, the West's military aid has helped Ukraine withstand the Russian assault and place Moscow under significant pressure. Putin, a figure deeply entrenched in a tightly controlled Russia, cannot afford to suffer a humiliating defeat. It was overly naïve for Trump to think that his ability to connect personally with Putin would lead to a peaceful resolution with Kyiv. This realization likely hit Trump hard during their meeting in Alaska last August. Following this, erratic American diplomacy raised the prospect of a second meeting in Hungary, yet it soon became evident that Putin's stubborn refusal would not yield positive results. In a bid to discuss military options, Trump subsequently floated the idea of supplying Ukraine with long-range BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. However, this suggestion was dismissed for two key reasons: the existing sanctions already crippling the Russian economy, with the U.S. Treasury targeting major oil companies like Rosneft and Lukoil, and the potential for Tomahawk use to escalate tensions dangerously, possibly even invoking nuclear threats. There is a growing fatigue around the ongoing conflict, particularly given its proximity to Europe. Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo recently underscored this sentiment, advocating for the provision of U.S. long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine—echoing the logical position of a nation with a 1,300-kilometer border with Russia. As the situation unfolds, it is imperative for the West to reassess its approach. Key questions focus on whether the U.S. is willing to maintain its unwavering support for Ukraine and to what extent European nations will escalate their arms supplies. Importantly, engaging with China to secure its neutrality in this conflict could be a strategic move, alongside implementing a response strategy that would economically tighten the noose on Russia while bolstering military support for Kyiv. Ultimately, the goal is to send a clear message to Putin that the West will not back down. Should the strong resolve attributed to Washington falter, the reality becomes stark: allowing Ukraine to fall may be the more practical option, all while preparing for the inevitable consequences of such a decision. Understanding how far Putin will push in testing the Western position remains critical as the global geopolitical landscape continues to evolve. Related Sources: • Source 1 • Source 2