By: Dr. Adnan Bouzan

Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the international political landscape has oscillated between military escalation and fruitless diplomatic efforts, shaped by the conflicting interests of major powers, particularly the United States and Russia. Against this turbulent backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump's recent statements about the possibility of ending the war within weeks have sparked numerous questions about the nature of Washington’s strategy in handling this complex conflict.

Does this statement signal a new American approach to ending the war through unconventional means, or is it merely a political maneuver aimed at redefining the U.S. role in the crisis? Additionally, the linkage between ending the war and an economic agreement with Ukraine raises further questions about the extent to which economic factors influence the course of the conflict and the realism of the White House's vision—especially amid ongoing military confrontations and persistent political tensions. These questions necessitate a deeper analysis of Trump's remarks and their potential implications within the current geopolitical landscape.

1- The Political Utilization of Trump's Statements

Trump's claim that the war in Ukraine could be ended within weeks was made during a high-level diplomatic meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron. This context reveals two key dimensions of the U.S. political approach to the crisis.

First, the statement reflects an attempt to reshape Washington’s handling of the Ukraine conflict in line with Trump’s long-standing policy of reducing America's burdens in foreign conflicts. Second, it underscores a broader U.S. strategy to shift greater responsibility onto Europe for ending the war—whether diplomatically or in terms of security commitments. This aligns with Trump’s broader approach to international alliances, which he advocated during his presidency, consistently pushing for a reduced direct U.S. role while urging European nations to assume greater responsibility for defense and security instead of relying excessively on American support.

In this context, Trump’s remarks can be interpreted as part of a broader strategy to pressure European allies into taking a more active role in resolving the conflict, whether by increasing military spending or assuming a greater role in negotiating with Moscow. This aligns with Washington’s growing inclination to reorder its geopolitical priorities, focusing on challenges like competition with China in the Indo-Pacific rather than deep involvement in prolonged European conflicts.

Moreover, Trump’s timing in making these statements may be tied to domestic political considerations, such as the U.S. elections and his stance on continued military aid to Ukraine. The issue of aid has been a divisive topic in American politics, with some conservative factions within the Republican Party opposing the continuous financial and military support to Kyiv, arguing that these resources should instead be directed toward addressing domestic concerns rather than engaging in a foreign war with unclear strategic benefits for the United States.

Thus, Trump's remarks can be seen as an effort to redefine America's role in the Ukraine conflict—by reducing direct involvement, shifting the burden onto Europe, and maintaining U.S. influence through economic agreements with Kyiv. This makes it crucial to observe how European allies respond to this vision and whether they are willing to assume greater responsibilities in managing this complex issue.

2- Strategic Analysis of the War-Ending Scenario

Trump’s statements contain two pivotal elements: first, the assertion that the war could end within “weeks,” and second, the link between ending the conflict and an economic deal concerning Ukraine’s mineral resources. These claims require careful scrutiny.

A- The Short Timeframe for Ending the War

Trump’s assertion that the war in Ukraine could be resolved within weeks seems overly optimistic, especially given the complexity of the military and political dynamics surrounding the conflict. It is unrealistic to expect a war of this magnitude to conclude so swiftly unless there are dramatic shifts in the balance of power or secret political understandings among key stakeholders, including Russia, Ukraine, and Western powers. Any rapid agreement would likely require major concessions from one side—something difficult to achieve amid rising tensions and entrenched positions.> Prolonged conflicts, particularly those with deep geopolitical dimensions like the war in Ukraine, rarely end through unilateral decisions or hasty negotiations. Instead, they typically require long, complex diplomatic processes based on battlefield realities and political balances. In Ukraine's case, the fighting continues, with ongoing military escalation and heavy weaponry in play—indicating that both sides remain determined to gain ground before engaging in serious negotiations. Given this reality, expecting the war to end in a short period is unlikely unless there is a major military collapse on one side or unprecedented diplomatic pressure from key stakeholders—neither of which seems imminent.

Furthermore, statements from U.S. and Western officials about their continued support for Ukraine suggest an intention to prolong the conflict rather than resolve it in the near future. The prevailing belief among Western powers is that a premature ceasefire could grant Russia strategic advantages, particularly if it does not involve a comprehensive settlement that includes Russian troop withdrawals or long-term security guarantees for Ukraine.

Therefore, unless a major diplomatic breakthrough or a significant military shift occurs, Trump’s claim of ending the war in weeks appears more like a political message aimed at the American public or an attempt to pressure Europe and Ukraine into showing greater flexibility in negotiations rather than a realistic pathway to resolving the conflict.

B- The Economic Dimension and the U.S.-Ukraine Deal

Trump’s suggestion that ending the war is tied to an economic agreement between Washington and Kyiv—particularly concerning Ukraine’s mineral resources—highlights the role of economic interests in geopolitical conflicts. This connection between economic and political factors reflects a broader U.S. strategy of leveraging trade agreements and investments as tools to influence war-torn nations, either by incentivizing negotiations or by providing alternatives to continued fighting.

In this context, a potential U.S.-Ukraine deal could be seen as an effort to shift Kyiv’s priorities from warfare to economic stability through partnerships with Washington. If such an agreement involves significant American investments in Ukraine’s mining sector, it could provide financial inflows that help rebuild infrastructure and offset some of the war’s economic damage. This, in turn, could make Ukraine more inclined toward negotiating a political settlement rather than continuing military confrontations.

Additionally, this deal could have broader strategic implications beyond economic investment. It may be part of a larger U.S. plan to secure Western control over Ukraine’s natural resources—particularly rare minerals, which are crucial for technological and military industries. In this sense, the primary goal of the deal may not be merely to end the war but to establish long-term U.S. economic influence in Ukraine while preventing these resources from falling under Russian control.

However, the success of this approach depends on whether it can persuade Moscow to halt its military operations. From Russia’s perspective, Ukraine remains part of its traditional sphere of influence, and any economic agreement that deepens Kyiv’s ties with Washington could be perceived as a strategic threat. If such a deal is seen as undermining Russian interests, it may, paradoxically, fuel continued conflict rather than facilitate its resolution.

Moreover, convincing Ukraine to accept an economic agreement as a substitute for military aid may prove challenging. Kyiv heavily relies on Western military support to sustain its resistance, and any proposal that implies reducing military aid in exchange for economic incentives could face opposition from Ukrainian political leaders. Many in Ukraine see continued fighting as essential for preserving national unity and preventing Russian influence from taking hold.

Ultimately, while economic factors could play a role in shaping the war’s outcome, their effectiveness in ending the conflict depends on achieving a balance between economic incentives and security guarantees. Any agreement that fails to address the security concerns of both Ukraine and Russia is unlikely to bring about a sustainable resolution and may instead add further complexity to the situation.

Conclusion

Trump’s statements about ending the Ukraine war in weeks and linking the ceasefire to an economic deal reflect a blend of political maneuvering, strategic calculations, and economic considerations. However, given the current military and political dynamics, such claims appear more aspirational than realistic. Without significant shifts in the battlefield or diplomatic breakthroughs, the conflict is likely to persist, making it crucial to monitor how major players—including the U.S., Europe, Russia, and Ukraine—navigate the evolving situation.

3- Geopolitical Dimensions and Europe's Responsibility:

Statements by former U.S. President Donald Trump highlight a growing strategic shift in U.S. policy toward the conflict in Ukraine, emphasizing that European countries should take responsibility for maintaining peace rather than relying on direct American involvement. While this stance is not entirely new, it comes in an increasingly complex context where geopolitical challenges facing Europe are mounting as the conflict continues. At the same time, questions are rising about whether the continent can play an independent role beyond the U.S. security umbrella.

A- Shifts in the U.S. Position: Reducing Direct Involvement?

Through this perspective, Washington appears to be seeking a redistribution of Europe's security burdens, aligning with the policies Trump has advocated since entering the White House. From the outset, he made it clear that U.S. allies in Europe should increase their contributions to security and defense matters rather than relying entirely on American support. This policy reflects a broader trend toward reducing direct U.S. involvement in international crises, particularly in Europe, which still depends heavily on the United States to confront major security challenges, whether through NATO or bilateral alliances.

Assigning Europe greater responsibility in Ukraine could have several implications, primarily pushing European allies to take more active roles in negotiations with Moscow or even considering deploying European peacekeeping forces, as hinted at by French President Emmanuel Macron. However, this proposal faces significant obstacles, as any direct European intervention could lead to further escalation with Russia, posing a direct threat to Europe's security.

B- The Absence of a Unified European Defense Policy

One of the major challenges to this scenario is that despite Europe’s unity in politically and militarily supporting Kyiv, it lacks a unified defense policy outside the NATO framework. The European Union, despite having some joint defense structures, still relies almost entirely on U.S. military capabilities to ensure the continent’s security, particularly given the defense gaps between European nations and their differing security priorities.> For instance, while countries such as Poland and the Baltic states support deeper European involvement in Ukraine, others like Germany and Italy are far more cautious, fearing Russian retaliation. Even France, which traditionally seeks a more independent European policy, cannot unilaterally push the continent toward a unified military stance on Ukraine.

These divisions make it difficult to achieve a coherent European strategy without continued U.S. support, as the United States remains the backbone of NATO, possessing military, technological, and intelligence capabilities that Europe cannot easily replace. Therefore, any attempt to shift greater responsibility onto Europe without an American security umbrella will face major practical challenges.

C- Potential Implications for U.S.-European Relations

This American approach may also create internal tensions between the U.S. and its European allies. While Washington attempts to scale back its security commitments, European nations may find themselves forced to increase defense spending and enhance their military capabilities, sparking internal debates over resource allocation and foreign policy priorities.

Moreover, reducing U.S. involvement could amplify calls within Europe for greater strategic autonomy, potentially altering the transatlantic relationship. In recent years, there have been growing discussions about establishing a "European army," a concept that still faces political and logistical hurdles but may gain momentum if the U.S. continues to scale back its role on the continent.

D- Can Europe Achieve Peace Without an Active U.S. Role?

Given these factors, achieving peace in Ukraine without active U.S. participation appears highly challenging. Even if European nations decide to play a greater role in negotiations or strengthen military support for Kyiv, the diplomatic pressure needed on Moscow and the broader regional security balance still depend heavily on American influence.

Furthermore, Russia itself may not take any European-led initiative seriously unless it is directly backed by Washington. So far, Russia has shown a greater interest in negotiating with the U.S. than with European countries, as strategic decisions regarding Ukraine’s future remain primarily influenced by the White House rather than Brussels, Paris, or Berlin.

In conclusion, while Trump’s statements reflect a growing U.S. tendency to shift more responsibility onto Europe, they do not necessarily indicate a long-term strategic transformation. It is unlikely that Washington will relinquish its influence in Europe, especially amid global competition with Russia and China. Instead, what we are witnessing may be a redistribution of roles between the U.S. and its allies rather than a complete withdrawal from the Ukrainian issue.

Ultimately, the key question remains: Can Europe independently ensure its security? So far, the continent does not appear ready for such a role, meaning that the U.S. will continue to be a decisive actor in both managing the Ukraine crisis and shaping the future of the European security order.

 4- Russia’s Position, Zelensky, and Potential Negotiations

Trump’s remarks about the possibility of meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin suggest the existence of undisclosed diplomatic channels between Moscow and Washington, potentially hinting at efforts to reach broader understandings beyond the Ukraine crisis. However, the lack of a set date or a clear framework for such a meeting reflects the political complexities both sides face, with Moscow remaining cautious about any moves that might undermine its strategic position.

A- Russia’s Position: Strategic Caution and Clear Demands

From Russia’s perspective, direct negotiations with the U.S. are not a new concept, as Moscow has long considered that resolving the Ukraine conflict should involve agreements between major powers rather than just talks with Kyiv. The Kremlin has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is merely a battleground in a larger struggle between Russia and the West, making any meaningful negotiations contingent on direct U.S. and European involvement.

However, Russia approaches any new American initiatives with caution, especially in the absence of clear guarantees that align with its strategic interests. Since the start of the war, Moscow has outlined several red lines regarding Ukraine’s future, primarily rejecting Kyiv’s NATO membership, securing recognition of the territories Russia has annexed, and establishing a new security framework preventing Ukraine from becoming an advanced base for Western influence. As such, any potential negotiations between Putin and Trump would largely revolve around whether Washington is willing to offer concessions on these critical issues.

Additionally, the timing of any possible meeting would be a crucial factor in determining its outcomes. Russia prefers negotiating from a position of strength, meaning it may continue military op- Zelensky’s Potential Visit to Washington: Between Pressure and Gainerations to improve its bargaining position before engaging in serious talks. Therefore, the absence of a scheduled meeting might reflect Moscow’s intention to wait until the balance of power on the ground shifts in its favor or perhaps until the next U.S. elections, which could significantly impact Washington’s stance on the conflict.

B- Zelensky’s Potential Visit to Washington: Between Pressure and Gains

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s potential visit to Washington carries multiple implications, whether in terms of discussing the economic agreement hinted at by Trump or Kyiv’s efforts to ensure continued U.S. support amid growing discussions about reducing direct American involvement in the war.

In recent months, Zelensky has faced increasing pressure, both domestically and from Western allies. On one hand, Ukraine’s military challenges are mounting, with intensified Russian attacks and stalled counteroffensives. On the other hand, there is growing concern in Kyiv that waning U.S. interest in the war could lead to reduced financial and military support, especially amid divisions within the U.S. Congress over continued aid to Ukraine.

In this context, Zelensky’s visit could be an attempt to secure reassurances regarding continued military assistance or to negotiate economic deals that would help bolster Ukraine’s resilience. If Trump’s proposed economic agreement involves Ukraine’s resources, Zelensky may seek guarantees ensuring that Kyiv benefits from such arrangements rather than merely serving U.S. interests without receiving meaningful security assurances.

C- Potential Negotiation Scenarios

Several potential scenarios could emerge regarding negotiations between the parties involved in the Ukraine conflict:

1. Direct U.S.-Russia Negotiations – If Washington and Moscow decide to reach a grand bargain, we could see a direct negotiation process between Putin and Trump, especially if the latter is willing to make concessions to quickly end the war.

2. European Mediation – France and Germany could act as intermediaries to relay messages between Moscow and Washington, particularly if the U.S. seeks to reduce its direct involvement in talks.

3. Pressuring Ukraine to Accept a Political Settlement – If Washington concludes that the war no longer serves its interests, it may push Kyiv toward a compromise, possibly including concessions such as granting special status to Russian-occupied territories.

4. Russian Escalation to Strengthen Its Position – If Moscow believes negotiations are not in its favor, it could escalate military operations to improve its bargaining leverage before any settlement is reached.

In the end, whether these moves indicate the start of a serious negotiation process or mere diplomatic maneuvering remains uncertain. So far, no party appears willing to make major concessions, making a swift resolution unlikely. However, discussions of a Trump-Putin meeting and Zelensky’s visit suggest ongoing efforts to reshape the diplomatic landscape, though their outcomes remain uncertain in the near term.

Add comment