WILL DONALD TRUMP’S MAGIC WAND RESOLVE UKRAINE AND THE ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN ISSUES ?

In geopolitics the term ‘deep freeze’ is a common phenomenon. Festering issues often go into a state of procrastination by leaders or by circumstances. That is exactly what happened to the war in Ukraine over the last couple of months; the European winter was just incidental.  The war had already been beset by huge attrition of military wherewithal and therefore in a state of stalemate. Public thinking has largely been that the change in US leadership, with promised follow up, would likely affect the Ukraine war like nothing has so far. There has been expectation that President Donald Trump in his second avatar will pressurise both Ukraine’s President Zelensky and Russian President Vladmir Putin into stopping the fighting and sitting down to negotiate.   

It’s why there has been relative silence from that end with a lot of noise heard from Gaza. So why wasn’t the same phenomenon applicable in Gaza; why didn’t everything go into deep freeze there. The answer is not far to seek. Joe Biden’s idea was that the US, along with NATO, could bleed Russia dry through sanctions while a militarily robust Ukraine, supplied with NATO military wherewithal, would neutralize Russian military ambitions and win the battlefield.  Biden’s approach to Gaza was different.

It was to give Israel enough time to defeat Hamas but if by the end of his presidential term this did not seem evident then seriously seek a ceasefire and ensure it was effective within his presidency, to leave on a high moral note. In other words, there was activism on the Gaza front and relatively low energy on the Ukraine front where the Biden Administration did not expect anything drastic to happen. Joe Biden actually failed on both fronts, while attempting to handle two wars both of which began in his presidency. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in Aug 2021 and the confidence reposed in the survival potential of the Afghan National Army (ANA) which lasted no more than 96 hours, should have reflected the inability of the Biden Administration to handle high profile and fast-moving international events such as the Ukraine and the Gaza wars.

The question now remains how Trump 2.0 is going to handle these two wars which have landed on his plate. Does the team have it in it to bring change. First a look at Ukraine where the war has waited long enough for initiatives towards peace, after all the proactivity to arm the protagonists to the teeth. Like all good military analyses let us begin with the situation on the ground. Three years since the war began, Ukraine has recaptured 54 percent of occupied territory, while Russia still occupies 18 percent of the country. Ukraine’s counteroffensive efforts have been several but have not made major impact. Ukraine’s northeast Kharkiv region has recently witnessed a Russian offensive. Russia continues to fire missiles at Ukrainian cities and blockade its ports.  Ukraine on the other hand has stepped up drone attacks on Russian ships and infrastructure. It is also attempting to employ larger drones to target deeper targets.

Ultimately this war too could peter down to exchange of missile fires and drone attacks with little scope for ground offensives which require heavy weapons, equipment and well-trained manpower. The Ukrainian Army has withstood the weight of the heavy Russian offensives, and many times belied the possibility of a war winning breakthrough by the Russians. Limited numbers of advanced Western systems such as tanks and heavy artillery have not had a force multiplication effect, but very heavy expenditure of ammunition has taken place. 

Ammunition shortages and reliance on Western supplies will limit the Ukrainian capability. Even if a breakthrough is made through rapid movement and achievement of surprise, the required maintenance of momentum may not be achieved.  The winter freeze will last till the end March 2025. That is the time till which Trump 2.0 has, to ideate, wargame and have internal consultations because Putin knows that he cannot allow the thaw to escape without major military activity, if he can afford it. He won’t wait for his friend Trump, forever. Opportunities will still be sought.

 Members of Trump’s chosen national security team have in recent weeks acknowledged the difficulties of brokering a possible peace accord.  “Let’s set it at 100 days and move all the way back and figure a way we can do this in the near term to make sure that the solution is solid, it’s sustainable, and that this war ends so that we stop the carnage,” said Lt Gen Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy on Ukraine. That is as militaristic as it can get but a good approach. Since the Nov 5 presidential election, Trump and his team have sent mixed signals on whether their potential peace proposals will be favourable to Ukraine. Trump does admire Putin, but he also wants to be seen as strong and decisive in his own right not to draw allegations of being a Putin admirer.

All the above has to be seen in the light of Trump’s known reluctance to back NATO. We know what transpired in his previous term. Any support to Zelensky will mean a backing to the NATO strategy to resist any efforts by Russia to limit NATO’s flexibility to push to the Russian frontiers. That will entail a pull back from Trump’s intent to lower US support for the alliance. There are contradictions galore, none of which are easy to resolve.

The Russians are looking for retention of Crimea and the Donbas area; they could be the zones of the oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia that the Russians have captured. For Zelensky there can be no compromise on territory for a ceasefire. The risk of deposing Zelensky has to be taken if a ceasefire on Russian terms has to be accepted. That runs further risk of possibly not finding a replacement leader who can hold Ukraine together. Risks have to be run and it’s not as if Russia does not have its risks.  Its vulnerabilities may push Putin toward negotiations, it’s unclear whether these vulnerabilities would lead to genuine concessions or a lasting peace. Altogether Trump 2.0 isn’t going to find peace in Ukraine anytime too soon. There is a need for careful diplomacy, compromise, and a willingness to address the complex issues driving the conflict.

On the Israeli-Palestinian front, it was the Abraham Accords and the overall energetic Trump support to Netanyahu which perhaps prompted Hamas towards the drastic and suicidal action of October 7, 2023, on the grounds of the Palestinian issue being forgotten by the international community. Of course, it was a typically ham-handed idea that has led to untold misery for the Palestinian people. Everyone agrees that the current ceasefire is yet a stalemate; there is no victory in such situations and Netanyahu worked without a grand strategy. Will the coming of Trump 2.0 make a difference.

Most experts agree that Trump’s return to office may not lead to dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, despite his unpredictable nature. They argue that the United States has long-running alliances, partnerships, and commitments in the region that will not be upended. In his usually maverick style Trump has now announced his intent of getting the Palestinians settled in Egypt, Jordan with a US take over the Gaza strip to rebuild it into a Riviera style international location, probably meaning a luxury area for sale. 

Trump is known for the extreme positions and announcements that he makes on US foreign policy. This could be one of them.  The Palestinian struggle for their homeland is unlikely to end in a whimper with the Hamas leadership decimated. An international effort towards rebuilding Gaza, placement of a neutral UN peace keeping force and promoting the Fatah led Palestinian Authority may yet be an option towards which the US must focus. One cannot just write off years of effort put in by the predecessors of Trump and Netanyahu.

Obviously both Ukraine and the Palestine issue may prove too big for Trump’s magic wand for US foreign policy. We are likely to witness a lot of turbulence before any move towards situations which offer saner dispensations.