Donald Trump’s approach to the war in Ukraine will be shaped by a combination of his transactional mindset, the influence of his advisors, and the geopolitical realities of the conflict. While his claim to end the war within 24 hours is politically compelling, the complexities of the situation suggest that any resolution will require far more nuanced strategies and negotiations.
The war in Ukraine is deeply tied to historical, economic, and military factors. Ukraine has received significant military and economic aid since the war began, with the U.S. contributing over $85 billion by August 2024. Europe has provided €118 billion ($124 billion) during the same period. This demonstrates not only the financial stakes but also the uneven burden-sharing among allies, a point Trump is likely to exploit. Historically, he has been critical of Europe’s contributions to NATO and defense efforts, and his potential demand for an 80:20 split in aid responsibility could cause friction among allies.
Trump’s approach to the conflict may be transactional, driven by the desire to reduce U.S. involvement and cost. His past skepticism toward NATO and international alliances suggests he may push for Europe to take on a more prominent role, perhaps even forming a coalition of the willing to support Ukraine directly. However, such a shift would require significant planning and resources, which Europe may struggle to mobilize independently. For instance, Germany’s planned deployment of a brigade to Lithuania alone is estimated to cost €6 billion upfront and €800 million annually, a figure that highlights the immense financial strain such operations impose.
One of the key challenges Trump will face is balancing his desire to strike a deal with Vladimir Putin against the realities on the ground. Russia’s defense spending, now exceeding 8% of GDP, has allowed it to sustain and even escalate its military operations. North Korea’s reported support for Russia further complicates the dynamics, giving Putin additional leverage. On the other hand, Ukraine’s resilience, bolstered by increasing weapon supplies and international support, makes it unlikely to accept any deal that undermines its territorial integrity or sovereignty. This includes Russia’s demand to retain control over Crimea and parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia.
Trump’s advisors, including his pick for national security advisor Michael Waltz, have proposed strategies that could create leverage over Russia, such as expanding U.S. gas exports and cracking down on Russian oil sales. These measures, combined with continued arms support for Ukraine, may be aimed at pressuring Russia into more favorable negotiations. However, Trump’s disdain for drawn-out conflicts and his focus on optics could push him toward a quicker resolution, potentially at the expense of Ukraine’s long-term security.
Ukraine’s leadership, including President Zelensky, appears cautiously optimistic about Trump’s return to office. Zelensky’s offer to grant American firms access to Ukraine’s rare mineral deposits indicates a willingness to appeal to Trump’s transactional tendencies. However, this may not be enough to counteract the isolationist sentiments within the Republican Party, where figures like J.D. Vance have openly expressed indifference toward Ukraine’s fate.
Europe’s role in this conflict is equally critical. While public support for aiding Ukraine remains relatively strong in some countries, 43% of Germans, for example, favor increasing aid according to recent polls—there are signs of war fatigue and hesitancy, particularly in western and southern Europe. France and Britain have floated the idea of deploying troops to Ukraine, but logistical and financial challenges, as well as the dependence on U.S. support, make such plans difficult to implement. Without strong American involvement, Europe’s ability to sustain a robust military presence in Ukraine is questionable.
If Trump decides to reduce aid or force a quick deal, the risks of a resurgent Russia and a destabilized Ukraine remain high. Putin could view any demobilization or reduced international support for Ukraine as an opportunity to reignite aggression. A poorly conceived peace deal could leave Ukraine vulnerable and undermine international confidence in the U.S. as a reliable ally.
Ultimately, Trump’s handling of the Ukraine war will be a test of his ability to navigate complex international dynamics while balancing his domestic political priorities. Whether his approach results in a lasting peace or merely a temporary reprieve will depend on his willingness to engage deeply with the nuances of the conflict, the input of his advisors, and the ability of Ukraine and its allies to assert their interests in negotiations. The stakes are high, and the world will be watching closely.
Duruebube Uzii na Abosi
Hon. Chima Nnadi-Oforgu
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment