President Trump is undeniably a figure of controversy, and regardless of one’s opinion on his style of leadership, he is significantly altering the established norms of international relations and diplomacy. His actions and rhetoric reverberate through the corridors of power, invoking a seriousness when he references the specter of global conflict. This prompts a crucial question: Is Trump inciting the possibility of a third world war, or is he merely employing a transactional approach to geopolitical crises that could ultimately yield a favorable resolution?
Recent communications from the Kremlin indicate that a peace agreement and ceasefire—one that the U.S. agreed upon with Ukraine during discussions in Saudi Arabia—remain a distant prospect. This situation compels Trump to refocus his efforts on Vladimir Putin, who has adeptly managed to create a rift between the U.S. and its European allies. It raises the unsettling possibility that it is Putin, rather than Trump, who is orchestrating the strategic dynamics at play. Hopefully, this realization will prompt Trump to take decisive measures to counteract Russian ambitions.
Putin’s insistence on the full integration of Crimea and the four territories he has illegally annexed, coupled with his demand that NATO forces be barred from Ukraine, suggests he is prepared to prolong the conflict should his conditions be dismissed. However, these demands must be rejected outright, necessitating a robust preparation for potential military engagement.
It’s not surprising that as Putin extends a welcoming hand to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko—whose nation now hosts Russian tactical nuclear weapons, and who has ominously stated a willingness to “push the nuclear button together if needed”—Poland is urging the U.S. to deploy tactical nuclear capabilities within its borders, bringing them within striking distance of Russia and Belarus. In this context, the nuclear option may serve as a distraction; the real risk of igniting World War III lies in the existing imbalance of conventional military forces, not in the nuclear arsenals.
Strategic Implications and the Role of U.S. Power
All the discussions surrounding the potential for World War III, fueled by the U.S. President’s remarks, may simply be a manifestation of what some are calling “Trumpflation.” Should Trump decide to back Ukraine with the full might of the U.S. military—even if only symbolically—Putin’s ambitions to seize Ukraine would likely falter, significantly reducing the chances of a broader conflict erupting across Europe.
Despite the Kremlin’s assertion that any ceasefire would merely provide an opportunity for the Ukrainian military to regroup and rearm, it is, in fact, Russia that will need to expedite its own preparations if the U.S. renews military support for Kyiv. The U.S. armed forces, bolstered by NATO, have the capacity to overwhelmingly outmatch Russia’s beleaguered military forces. Thus, for all of Trump’s bravado, it is he who holds the potential key to ushering in peace in Europe. One can only hope that his interest in securing profitable deals, such as those involving Ukrainian rare earth minerals, will align with the broader objective of establishing enduring peace on the continent.
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon OBE is a former commander of UK and NATO Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) forces.
