Enlisting the Peace President for Ukraine

With the Gaza Peace Plan bringing eternal peace or at least a preliminary ceasefire to the Middle East, the Peace President Donald Trump (according to himself and the White House), took another step towards his much desired Nobel Peace Prize. Many critics still point out the vagueness of the plan, the lack of Palestinian representation, and thus the various pitfalls awaiting its implementation. Nonetheless, it has stopped the killing in Gaza for now and freed the remaining survivors among the Israeli hostages. The key to this breakthrough was an active involvement of regional actors like Türkiye and Qatar, as well as the quite forceful application of US power on Israel to stop the war in Gaza. 

After this first success, Trump is now looking at his next stop on the road to Oslo: Ending the Russian war against Ukraine. He announced it while thinking out loud about a possible peace deal with Iran: “But first we have to get Russia done.”

Getting Russia done

However, “getting Russia done” might prove trickier than stopping the killing in Gaza. In the Middle East, President Trump had to persuade an ally to stop the war. US leverage on Israel is immense, since the Israeli war efforts depend heavily on American backing. In Ukraine, however, he faces President Putin at the potential negotiation table. American leverage here is far smaller. Putin is cooperating with the main US competitor China as well as with Iran and North Korea. Instruments to strong-arm Russia include secondary sanctions on India and other countries for buying Russian oil, but that threat has been in the air for too long and never been followed through. Another lever could be the delivery of more and stronger weapons systems to Kyiv, like Tomahawk missiles. Trump has been musing about this idea for longer now, hinting at the possibility of European allies buying these weapons for Ukraine, which would allow him to put pressure on Ukraine and at the same time make a profitable deal for the US. It wouldn’t be the first time that new weapon systems are delivered to Ukraine to shift the military balance. The effects have mostly been short-term instead of decisive. What remains lacking is a long-term plan for the future of a sovereign Ukraine and the involvement of regional actors, because Trump doesn’t do long-term thinking.

Keep Trump in the picture for Ukraine

Therefore, the danger after the deal in Egypt is two-fold. The first bad possible outcome could be that Trump loses interest. Hastily trying to “get Russia done” and ending up being set up by Putin again could lead him to abandon the Ukrainian case as unsolvable. In this scenario, Ukraine and her European partners would be left alone to handle the Russian threat. The second possible dangerous choice could be seeking a road to Oslo by strong-arming the American ally Ukraine. In this case, President Trump would – for the sake of upholding his role as the peacemaker – force Kyiv to accept a deal on Russian terms.

In the Middle East, the decisive nudge for Trump to re-engage came from regional actors. The same should be the case in Ukraine. Europeans should not just publicly urge him to engage, but support this with a plan outlining a potential starting point for both sides to join a negotiation table. While rather difficult to fathom with Russia, the OSCE could step in as a process facilitator and prepare the ground enough for Trump to get engaged. Beyond the fact that the OSCE is Europe’s main forum for security and cooperation on the continent, its venue, the Viennese Hofburg, a sprawling, imperial palace complex from an era of emperors, is the closest Europe has to the golden buildings the Peace President loves so much.