Executive Summary
The Story So Far
Why This Matters
Who Thinks What?
President Trump has indicated that resolving the conflict in Ukraine is his next major foreign policy priority, following what he described as achieving peace in the Middle East. Special envoy Steve Witkoff has been tasked with this effort, but an analysis suggests that securing peace with Russia may prove significantly more challenging due to fundamental differences in the dynamics of the conflicts.
Challenges to Ukraine Peace Efforts
The analysis highlights a key distinction: while Trump negotiated with Israel, a militarily dependent ally, Russia is a historical adversary of the United States, relying on China. Furthermore, global condemnation for the conflict in Gaza was widespread, whereas international views on Russia’s nearly four-year invasion of Ukraine are more varied.
Previous attempts by Trump to engage Russian President Vladimir Putin through diplomatic overtures and economic persuasion have yielded limited results, with the Kremlin acknowledging a “serious pause” in talks. Unlike the Gaza situation, analysts argue Trump cannot simply declare a deal and defer complex details, given Putin’s history of leaving negotiations unresolved, such as during past talks in Alaska.
Concerns have also been raised by European allies regarding Special Envoy Witkoff’s initial understanding of Russia, despite President Trump’s praise for his time spent in Moscow. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reportedly developing security guarantee plans for Ukraine, contingent on an enduring peace settlement.
Potential Shift in Strategy: Tomahawk Missiles
A potential shift in strategy involves President Trump’s consideration of allowing European allies to provide Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles, which possess a 1,500-mile range and could strike deep within Russian territory. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed that such a move could exert necessary pressure for peace, having discussed the matter with Trump.
The Kremlin has responded to the Tomahawk discussion by suggesting US personnel would be required to operate the sophisticated weaponry and by raising concerns about their potential nuclear capability, warning of escalating tensions. Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that “tensions are escalating from all sides.” President Trump has stated, “We’ll see… I may,” regarding the provision of these missiles, adding, “I might tell them that if the war is not settled, that we may very well, we may not, but we may do it. Do they (Russia) want Tomahawks going in their direction? I don’t think so.”
The analysis points to a history of “hollow threats” from both Moscow and Washington, emphasizing that only “real and palpable damage” now holds currency in the conflict. Russia is already experiencing gas shortages in some regions due to Ukrainian strikes and faces an overheating economy, though President Putin’s long-term political survival may outweigh immediate economic concerns.
Path Forward
Ultimately, the path to peace in Ukraine for President Trump is seen as requiring a demonstration of genuine strength and a willingness to follow through on threats of economic and physical consequence, a direction that the analysis suggests might push him further than previous administrations. The Kremlin, according to the analysis, only responds to strength, necessitating a tangible show of force.
