In a frantic bid to secure diplomatic victories, Donald Trump is navigating two profound international crises, all while US stock markets face volatility due to his contentious tariff policies. Juggling, once a hallmark of the entertainment industry, seems to have become a fitting metaphor for Trump’s current diplomatic endeavors.
As his amateur billionaire envoys grapple with the challenges in Ukraine and Russia, Trump appears to be redirecting media attention towards another tumultuous situation: Israel, Hamas, and Gaza. This week, property tycoon Steve Witkoff traveled from Qatar to Moscow, presenting a proposal aimed at extending the current ceasefire in Gaza in exchange for a limited release of Hamas hostages. The fiery rhetoric of unleashing hell in the region has notably quieted.
Simultaneously, American diplomats have presented ceasefire proposals to Russia, proposals that the Ukrainians have reluctantly endorsed. Russian President Vladimir Putin managed to meet Witkoff on Thursday, after a lengthy day spent feigning interest in the mundane musings of Belarusian autocrat Alexander Lukashenko. The Russian response to the 30-day ceasefire proposal was predictably non-committal, akin to frost settling over Siberia, effectively stalling Trump’s timeline.
While Putin welcomed Trump’s diplomatic efforts, he emphasized the necessity for further discussions about the discussions, each session focused on intricate details yet to be documented by the Trump administration. One can only imagine the delight of Putin’s aides—Sergey Lavrov, Yuri Ushakov, and Sergey Naryshkin—as they dive into this bureaucratic labyrinth.
In a slight departure from his usual treatment of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump has suggested that he could potentially cripple Russia’s economy with sanctions. However, these sanctions have yet to yield significant effects over the past three years. Any economic maneuvers Trump could undertake are fraught with complexities; he has effectively hindered himself from supplying additional arms to Ukraine.
- Will he risk antagonizing China and India by imposing secondary sanctions on their lucrative purchases of Russian oil and gas?
- What impact would a decline in oil prices have on the US fracking industry, which operates on razor-thin margins and is viewed as a key driver of economic growth?
- How would major oil interests, who heavily funded Trump’s campaign, react to such a move?
Putin is acutely aware of these concerns, which is why he publicly entertains the idea of granting the US access to critical Russian minerals and possibly allowing big oil to return to the Arctic and Siberia. His confidence in Trump’s susceptibility is evident, as he has even sought input from his own industrial oligarchs regarding which US sanctions they would prefer to see lifted.
In reality, Putin is in no rush to agree to a ceasefire, which would primarily benefit Ukraine, whose forces are currently being pressured out of the Kursk salient by advancing Russian troops conducting reconnaissance and sabotage operations near the Ukrainian city of Sumy.
Russia’s Firm Stance and the Road Ahead
Putin, alongside other senior Russian officials, has delineated their own non-negotiable red lines. Russia has stated unequivocally that it will not tolerate NATO troops acting as peacekeepers anywhere in Ukraine. They demand that the West cease its military support for Kyiv while simultaneously receiving arms and technology from Iran, North Korea, and China.
The Russian government insists on the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the eastern “Donbas” regions, which they have notably failed to fully occupy after three years of conflict. Any discussions regarding these “new territories” are deemed impossible by Russia, as they are now constitutionally recognized as integral parts of the Russian Federation. The idea of the Duma reconsidering this status seems a distant fantasy.
Moreover, the Russians maintain that any ceasefire and peace negotiations— which they argue must be an ongoing dialogue rather than a series of discrete stages—must first address the “root causes” of what they refuse to label as a war, despite the staggering casualties on both sides.
Recently, an adventurous Western intelligence agency uncovered a document from a Russian think tank associated with the FSB security agency. This paper advocates for the complete dismantling of Ukraine’s “current regime,” which they blame for the persecution of ethnic Russians and the “extermination” of the Russian language and culture. The document may have been prepared for the Russian negotiating team that attended talks in Saudi Arabia, as it proposes establishing buffer zones in northern and southern Ukraine, including areas around Odesa and Crimea.
Additionally, it underscores Russia’s strategic objective of driving a wedge between the US, the EU, and China—an endeavor that Trump seems to be inadvertently facilitating, even as he attempts a bewildering “reverse Nixon” strategy to fracture Eurasian alliances.
Given this context, one must ponder why China or Russia would allow someone as unpredictable and volatile as Trump to meddle in a relationship that has proven to be stable and advantageous for both parties. Instead, they might continue to attract more nations from the Global South and, in China’s case, a growing number of Europeans, not necessarily into their orbit but towards a stance of neutrality concerning the US.
As a result, we should expect further discussions about these negotiations, with Trump possibly receiving a call or two from Putin, while the situation in Gaza remains stagnant. The “America First” narrative may quickly morph into “America Last” as Trump struggles to keep one of the many balls he is juggling in the air—namely, the promise of an economic golden age for everyday Americans. It may soon dawn on him that he is juggling chainsaws.
Putin is unlikely to respond to the US-Ukraine ceasefire proposal until after his discussions with Lukashenko are concluded. One can’t help but feel that Mr. Witkoff will return to Washington, clutching a few meager straws to offset the inevitable “nyet.”
Ultimately, Trump must recognize that achieving peace cannot be accomplished in a single day—or even a hundred.
Michael Burleigh is a senior fellow at LSE Ideas
