Donald Trump’s inclination to disengage from prolonged military conflicts, evident during his first presidential term, has fueled speculation about his potential approach to the Russia-Ukraine war. However, while his rhetoric suggests a desire to broker peace, the geopolitical intricacies and entrenched rivalries that underpin this conflict mean that Trump’s aspirations are unlikely to translate into a swift resolution.

At the heart of the Ukraine conflict lies a fundamental geopolitical impasse: neither Russia nor the United States is willing to accept Ukraine falling into the other’s sphere of influence. This impasse has turned Ukraine into a battleground for a larger power struggle between Moscow and Washington, where both sides use Ukraine as a proxy to assert dominance without direct military confrontation. Trump’s policies, while divergent from those of his predecessors, will be constrained by the enduring complexities of this proxy war.

The Russia-Ukraine war exemplifies modern proxy conflicts, where nuclear-armed superpowers carefully maneuver to avoid direct confrontation. Over the past two years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has employed a calculated strategy to secure Moscow’s objectives while keeping the conflict below a threshold that would necessitate full-scale war. This approach has allowed Russia to consolidate its position in occupied territories, gradually turning the tide in its favor without escalating to a broader regional conflict.

Meanwhile, the United States and its NATO allies have provided extensive military aid to Ukraine, including advanced weaponry and financial support, aimed at stalling Russia’s advances. Yet, this aid has failed to deliver the decisive victories that Western leaders initially hoped for. Ukraine’s deteriorating position on the battlefield highlights the limitations of relying on external military support against a determined adversary like Russia.

Trump’s potential presidency would undoubtedly alter the tone of US involvement, but it is unlikely to shift the fundamental dynamics of the conflict. While he may adopt a less interventionist stance compared to Joe Biden, Trump’s administration would still face the strategic imperatives of countering Russian aggression and maintaining the credibility of NATO.

Trump’s first term in office provides valuable insights into how he might approach the Ukraine conflict. Despite his stated desire to improve US-Russia relations, his presidency was marked by a series of diplomatic confrontations with Moscow. For instance, the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats by the outgoing Obama administration in late 2016 set the stage for heightened tensions. While Putin refrained from retaliating immediately, hoping for a diplomatic reset under Trump, this optimism quickly faded as Trump became entangled in domestic scandals, including allegations of collusion with Russia.

By mid-2017, Russia responded by expelling 755 US diplomats, signaling a shift toward parity in diplomatic relations. This episode underscores a key challenge for Trump: even with his intent to reduce tensions, domestic and international pressures often constrained his ability to enact significant policy changes toward Russia.

If Trump returns to the White House, his approach to the Ukraine conflict will likely face similar obstacles. Any attempts to negotiate with Putin will be met with skepticism from both domestic political opponents and US allies, complicating efforts to achieve a lasting resolution.

The Ukraine conflict has highlighted the enduring relevance of nuclear deterrence in shaping global geopolitics. Russia’s nuclear arsenal has served as a powerful tool to deter Western intervention, forcing NATO to carefully calibrate its military support for Ukraine. This dynamic has created a paradox: while the West seeks to counter Russia’s aggression, it must also avoid actions that could provoke a direct confrontation.

Putin’s recent demonstration of the Oreshnik missile system, with its advanced hypersonic capabilities, serves as a stark reminder of Russia’s military power. However, this display is not merely a show of force; it is a strategic move to maintain deterrence and remind Western leaders of the limits of their involvement in Ukraine.

For Trump, navigating this balance of deterrence will be a critical challenge. His administration would need to address the dual objectives of preventing Russian advances while avoiding actions that could escalate the conflict into a nuclear standoff. This tightrope walk mirrors the challenges faced by the Biden administration, underscoring the constraints imposed by the geopolitical realities of the conflict.

On the ground, the situation for Ukraine’s Armed Forces (AFU) continues to deteriorate. Despite substantial military aid from the West, including advanced missile systems, Ukraine has struggled to counter Russia’s steady advances. The narrative of Western weapons as a “game-changer” has largely failed to materialize, with the conflict increasingly resembling a war of attrition that favors Moscow.

Russia’s strategy of gradual escalation, combined with its focus on maintaining domestic stability, has enabled it to adapt to the challenges posed by Western sanctions and military support for Ukraine. This approach has allowed Moscow to sustain the conflict at manageable levels, preserving its military and economic resources while pursuing its objectives.

For Ukraine, the prospects of a military victory appear increasingly remote. As the conflict drags on, Kiev faces mounting pressure to negotiate a settlement that aligns with Moscow’s demands, including disarmament and political neutrality. However, such concessions remain deeply unpopular among Ukraine’s leadership and populace, further complicating efforts to reach a resolution.

Three potential scenarios could shape the future of the Ukraine conflict:

Comprehensive Agreement: The most ambitious outcome would involve a comprehensive agreement between Russia and the West, addressing issues such as NATO expansion and the broader security architecture in Europe. However, this scenario remains highly unlikely, given the deep-seated mistrust and conflicting interests on both sides.

Limited Agreement: A more realistic outcome involves a limited agreement focused on Ukraine, potentially including a ceasefire along current frontlines and a moratorium on Ukraine’s NATO membership. While this scenario has gained traction in recent months, significant hurdles remain, particularly regarding Ukraine’s disarmament and political alignment.

Protracted Conflict: The most likely scenario involves a continuation of the current conflict, with both sides seeking to outlast the other militarily and politically. This approach aligns with Russia’s long-term strategy of maintaining pressure on Ukraine while avoiding a full-scale war.

The extent of Western support for Ukraine will play a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of the conflict. As economic pressures mount in Europe and the United States, public and political support for continued military aid to Ukraine may wane. This dynamic could force Kiev to consider more pragmatic approaches to resolving the conflict, potentially aligning with Russia’s demands.

For Trump, managing the burden of US involvement in Ukraine will be a key priority. His administration may seek to shift greater responsibility onto European allies, emphasizing burden-sharing within NATO. However, this approach risks undermining the cohesion of the alliance and creating new challenges for US foreign policy.

Donald Trump’s presidency is unlikely to bring a swift end to the Ukraine conflict. While his approach may differ from that of Joe Biden, the underlying geopolitical realities and entrenched rivalries between Russia and the West remain unchanged. The conflict’s resolution will ultimately depend on the willingness of both sides to address the fundamental contradictions that underpin it.

In the short term, Trump’s administration would face the same challenges as its predecessor: navigating the fine line between military escalation and nuclear confrontation. As the situation continues to evolve, the prospects of a comprehensive agreement appear slim, leaving both Russia and the West locked in a protracted struggle for influence over Ukraine. For now, Moscow’s strategy of gradual escalation and containment appears to be leading it closer to its objectives, while Kiev grapples with the harsh realities of the battlefield and diminishing Western support.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel