How Trump’s Influence Could Reshape the Russia–Ukraine Conflict

President-elect Donald Trump is positioning himself to make sweeping efforts to end the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine.

How successful his administration will be in that goal, and what that success would mean for the futures of Ukraine and Russia, remain open questions.

Arik Burakovsky, associate director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at Tufts University, believes the potential for renewed engagement with Russia could be immense if Trump pushes forward in his hopes to broker a cease-fire.

That means diplomatic opportunities abound for the second Trump administration.

“If both sides come to the table, there is a chance to discuss a cease-fire and security guarantees that could be meaningful for Ukraine’s stability,” Burakovsky told The Epoch Times.

“However, I am concerned that if Russia and Ukraine remain unwilling to negotiate in good faith and make compromises, Trump’s attention could quickly shift, especially if progress is not immediate,” he added.

Related Stories

Moscow and Kyiv have thus far proven reluctant to signal a willingness to back down from previously established demands and the returning leader may hit roadblocks in his attempts to corral a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

When Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022, Ukraine vowed to retake all of its occupied territory including Crimea, first lost to Russia in 2014. Moscow, meanwhile, promised to continue fighting until the whole nation of Ukraine had been demilitarized and rendered permanently neutral on the international stage.

Though both sides have been slow to publicly cede ground on those positions, there have been some suggestions of a hidden willingness to engage in diplomacy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made preventing Ukraine from joining NATO a key war aim, though it is unlikely Ukraine could garner the unanimous consent of all NATO members that is required for membership anyway.

Zelenskyy’s proposition did not call for NATO membership, however, only protection for the duration of a cease-fire. It may therefore be possible that NATO could agree to help enforce peace as part of a wider negotiated settlement.

The key question is whether the Trump administration will stick with long-winding negotiations or will balk at the lack of immediate concessions from either side.

Burakovsky said that Trump’s efforts at international negotiations during his first term may suggest that U.S. support for Ukraine might waver should talks stall, leading to a diminishing of U.S. and allied support for Ukraine’s defense.

“That could leave Ukraine in a precarious position, potentially vulnerable to intensified Russian aggression without robust backing from the West,” Burakovsky said.

“Ultimately, while there is a glimmer of hope for a peaceful resolution, it will hinge on sustained U.S. engagement and both sides’ willingness to negotiate a genuine end to the war,” he added.

China Outreach Signals Wider Goals

One potential way to accomplish that sustained engagement is by tying the negotiation to broader geopolitical goals and ensuring that Russia feels it is being backed by a party favorable to its goals, just as the United States backs Ukraine.

Trump has suggested as much, writing in a Dec. 8 social media post that China could assist the cease-fire process, likely in a position of ensuring Russian interests.

“I know Vladimir [Putin] well. This is his time to act. China can help. The world is waiting!” Trump wrote.

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership has made no secret of its ambitions to play a role in resolving the conflict.

Sam Kessler, a geopolitical analyst for the North Star Support Group risk advisory firm, said that granting China a role in peace talks could help the Trump administration to smooth out other geopolitical tensions, including ongoing military bluster from Beijing on the issue of Taiwan independence.

“However, there’s a much bigger picture being played here as well, which is Russia’s future role in the international system as well as their relationship with China and the United States,” Kessler told The Epoch Times.

“Any potential peace agreement may have to put that aspect into consideration as well,” he added.

To that end, the inclusion of China in peace talks could help the Trump administration use the resolution of the war in Ukraine to set terms for a new era in global relations.

Kellogg proposed earlier in the year that the United States should push for a cease-fire that would freeze the current frontlines of the battlefield while the two sides came up with a more long-term solution, a concept that both Kyiv and Moscow dismissed at the time.

The proposal would bring about a tectonic shift in how the United States has thus far approached the war and would likely face some opposition from both European allies and Russia hawks within the Republican Party.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for one, has said that Russia must be defeated in Ukraine to prevent a CCP invasion of Taiwan.

Regardless, Kessler believes that the appointment of Kellogg reflects a broader hope of Trump’s to force an end to the war, thus lowering the risk of global conflict and giving international markets an economic boost, even at the expense of Ukraine.

“It would depend on freezing the battle lines and forcing negotiations, and then possibly being open to giving eastern Ukraine to Russia,” Kessler said.

“However, any agreement made would have to require a certain level of benefit for all players to be willing to go back to the table and agree to a peace deal,” he added.

To that end, maintaining whatever cease-fire deal emerges will require ensuring that Ukraine can deter another invasion so that Russia cannot simply exploit the time by rebuilding and redeploying its forces.

Just how to prevent such a scenario is unclear.

There are more aggressive plays being suggested by experts and policymakers, however. Among them is helping Ukraine to rearm with a strategic nuclear deterrent.

After the Soviet Union fell, Ukraine was one of the world’s largest nuclear powers.

Ukrainian leadership decided to disarm, however, after receiving assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia that those powers would protect Ukraine from nuclear threats.

Anders Corr, principal of the Corr Analytics political risk firm, said that Russia’s invasion rendered that agreement moot and that the United States could now consider allowing Ukraine to rebuild its nuclear arsenal to ensure Russia does not invade again.

“The single most important strategy to deter Russia from further aggression in Ukraine is to let the country have its nuclear weapons back,” Corr told the Epoch Times.

“In fact, we should help them or transfer the necessary technology or weapons from our own bunkers. We need to call Putin’s bluff and this is the way to do it with the least expenditure in men and material,” he added.

The Biden administration has thus far said that it will not consider such a move, and Trump has repeatedly said the conflict is already too close to going nuclear.

For Kyiv’s part, however, Zelenskyy said in October that nuclear armament would be the only way to ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty should NATO back down from protecting the embattled nation.

“Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons and that will be our protection or we should have some sort of alliance. Apart from NATO, today we do not know any effective alliances.”

While Trump is unlikely to endorse such a plan, there is a possibility that the incoming administration will make arming Ukraine with conventional weapons a priority so long as Ukraine engages in cease-fire talks with Russia.

Kellogg’s proposed strategy for winding down the war specifically argued for ensuring that the United States continues to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses provided Kyiv accepts a negotiation to begin with.

It is unclear if Trump has endorsed Kellogg’s plan, but such a policy would help the administration to encourage an end to the war by forcing both sides to the table once and for all.