Since returning to office, Trump has flipped and flopped regarding Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian president Vladimir Putin. It’s been unclear which of the two leaders will find themselves in Trump’s favor on any given day. This dynamic was shown starkly in Trump’s recent meetings over the span of four days, first with Putin, then with Zelenskyy and an entourage of European leaders.
Going into these meetings, Trump had been adamant about the need for a ceasefire in Ukraine, putting himself forward as a “peacemaker” who had already ended “six wars.” But he dropped his call for a ceasefire immediately after hosting Putin in Alaska last Friday, instead proposing that the United States, Russia, and Ukraine work toward a longer-term “peace deal.” This was seen as a major blow to Ukraine and set off alarms in the imperialist press of “capitulation” to Putin. Trump also refrained from placing sanctions on Russia, much to the dismay of Russia hawks.
Fueled by a concern that Putin had wooed Trump, Zelenskyy and a “coalition of the willing” — made up of French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte — headed to the White House the following Monday.
This meeting with Zelenskyy was starkly different from the last time the Ukrainian president was in the White House. Instead of being barked at by Vice President J.D. Vance while Secretary of State Marco Rubio dissociated into the couch, this time Zelenskyy cracked jokes and elicited chuckles from Trump. Most notably, Trump signaled the possibility of “security guarantees” for Ukraine, which is one of Zelenskyy’s main demands. What such guarantees will mean concretely is still open, but the Trump Administration is suggesting that it will largely lean on European military powers to bolster Ukraine, with the possibility of some U.S. military commitment. Trump has, however, sought to clarify that a security agreement would not be organized formally under NATO. Putin has maintained opposition to Ukrainian NATO membership as a red line since before Russia’s invasion in 2022.
Trump has suggested that a summit consisting of him, Putin, and Zelesnkyy could happen in the near future to discuss the terms of a peace deal, though Putin seems less interested in such a meeting than the other two.
The Reason for Trump’s Flip Flopping and the Prospects for a Peace Deal
This will likely not be the last flip or flop in Trump’s policy toward Zelenskyy, Putin, and NATO leaders. Any peace deal to end the war will be a long and tumultuous process.
Trump’s seemingly unpredictable attitude makes more sense when considering a few dynamics. 1) International politics are in a state of “polycrisis,” meaning that multiple economic, geopolitical, and military crises are interconnected, complicating and exacerbating one another and making easy resolutions impossible. 2) Trump needs a win. Domestically and internationally, Trump has been unable to move forward with key aspects of his agenda and has largely had to rely on militarization as a way to carry out his policies. 3) Because Trump is increasingly trying to focus on other regions such as Latin America, he simply cannot continue to concentrate political capital and military assets in Europe.
Trump is serious about rearranging the U.S. relationship with Europe. The outcome of the war in Ukraine will show if such a goal can be achieved. Trump would likely consider it a significant win if he can agree to a “security guarantee” in which Europe is mainly responsible for the military commitments to Ukraine, while the United States reaps the spoils of war such as Ukraine’s rare earth minerals which Zelenskyy has already signed away to the United States.
Increased military involvement by Europe’s imperialist powers risks escalating tensions with Russia. Such a scenario has nothing to do with true independence for Ukraine.
Any final deals will ultimately be decided on the battlefield, and here Russia holds the advantage. Just days before Putin’s meeting with Trump, Russian forces made advances in the Donbas. The region in Ukraine’s east will be one of the main sticking points for any “peace agreement,” as Putin insists Ukraine must cede this territory, a demand which is impossible for Zelenskyy to accept. Despite Russia’s recent advances, however, the war remains largely stalemated. This situation puts time on Russia’s side. Ukraine is suffering from a lack of manpower and growing frustration over the continuation of the war and the suspension of democratic rights which have come with it.
Even if a peace deal is reached, it will provide no real peace for Europe, and especially not for the people of Ukraine. The war was one of the first signs that the international system defined by neoliberalism has reached its limit and we are now in a renewed epoch of crises, wars, and revolutions. U.S. imperialism is unable to play the hegemonic role in the world that it once did.
A peace deal might pause the trench warfare which has devastated Ukraine for several years. Yet it will not interrupt the Ukrainian state’s subordination to U.S. imperialism, currently picking at the country like a vulture. It will not stop the arms race sweeping Europe, which will fuel more wars as countries gut their social safety nets. It will not pause the challenge posed by the new geopolitical bloc forming around Russia and China, two powers which aim not to end capitalism, but to carve out their own place at the top of the imperialist system.
This makes it all the more essential that workers in the United States place no faith in Trump’s hollow appeals to anti-war sentiments. Bourgeois pacifists claim that bold diplomacy can build peace between rival capitalist powers, but this is also a dead end. The war in Ukraine shows the need for workers’ internationalism as the foundation to resist capitalist wars. Only this can guarantee a lasting peace.
