Three Presidents, One Peace

Famed military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, argued, “war is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means”. The aim of each side in an armed conflict is to inflict harm upon the enemy with the goal of forcing them to negotiate and make concessions in order to secure an advantageous settlement. It is with this perspective in mind that we must analyze the latest attack carried out by Ukraine against valuable Russian military assets. The purpose of war is peace, and the purpose of such attacks is to force the enemy to accept peace on your terms.

Over the past months, the negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States which were meant to end the war have developed into a diplomatic quagmire with no end in sight. In order to understand how the conflict is expected to evolve, we must analyze the political motives of the three leaders involved in these negotiations. By doing so, we can gain valuable insight into the rationale behind the Ukrainian attack and perhaps get a rough idea of the peace that will follow the end of this war.

With the war in Ukraine having entered its third year in 2025 and with a new administration taking power in Washington, many had hoped that this signified that the end of the conflict was approaching. Indeed, bringing about the end of the war became a key part of President Trump’s platform while campaigning for his second term. While his claim that he would “end the war on day one” garnered an understandable degree of skepticism, it at least showed that the matter was high on his list of priorities. Trump has, since his first presidential campaign, fashioned himself a peacemaker. His criticism of Hillary Clinton’s hawkish past was a regular talking point during his first campaign. Moreover, he has expressed a desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize multiple times over the course of his political career. So, we can understand that Trump’s intent going into the negotiations is to force both sides to compromise and secure peace. Whether the terms of the peace agreement last and enhance regional stability over the long-term does not seem to be the priority. Rather, he is hoping for a settlement that he can then convert into domestic political gains.

Among the three leaders, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been the most consistent on his stance; an end to the war wherein all the territory captured by Russia since February 2022 is returned to Ukraine. While additional demands such as reclaiming Crimea and reparations for the damage inflicted upon their country have been brought up occasionally by Ukrainian officials and Zelenskyy himself, whether these goals can realistically be achieved is entirely dependent upon the outcomes on the battlefield. So, based on past statements, we can infer that the bare minimum requirements for peace terms that are acceptable to the Ukrainian government would be twofold; the return of captured Ukrainian territory and guarantees of future security. However, this may be easier said than done. The expansion of NATO and the Western sphere of influence has been the main casus belli given by the Russian government for this conflict. This, in conjunction with Ukrainian sentiments regarding the breach of past security guarantees agreed upon during the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 tells us that the most difficult part of negotiating any lasting settlement will relate to security guarantees for the future. It is here that American and European involvement in the negotiations becomes critical. While the Russian leadership has claimed that Ukrainian entry into NATO, or any similar security arrangement, would be a red line for them, it is clear that the Ukrainian government will not accept a peace which is not backed by security guarantees from an outside power.

Lastly, we come to Vladimir Putin. Compared to his American and Ukrainian counterparts, the Russian President’s objectives are significantly more difficult to pinpoint. Since Trump took office and Washington’s sanctions on the Russian economy were loosened, Putin seems to have been emboldened. A shrewd and experienced politician, he may have instantly recognized the vulnerability exposed by Donald Trump’s diplomatic posturing. By making it clear that he wanted peace at all costs, Trump signaled that he might be willing to push Ukraine towards making concessions in order to meet his ends. And this is precisely what followed; first with the cutting off of military aid to Ukraine and next with the heated discussion in the White House. Trump’s claim that Zelenskyy “doesn’t hold all the cards” can be interpreted as an expression of frustration with the Ukrainian President’s unwillingness to accept peace on his terms despite, at least in Trump’s mind, lacking the diplomatic leverage to resist such an enforced settlement. This schism between Washington and Kyiv has only served to strengthen Putin’s position. Under the prospect of a settlement being imposed on Ukraine, the Russian President was incentivized to push his advantage and seize as much territory as possible before terms could be finalized. Moreover, by dragging out negotiations for any ceasefire agreement or lasting peace, he could buy time and make even further gains. This may be the reason behind the meetings between the three leaders being agreed upon and promptly cancelled several times in the past few months.

Over the past weeks, however, America appears to have once again reversed its stance with the announcement of new aid packages to Ukraine and the threat of sanctions being re-imposed upon Russia. While nowhere near the level of support provided by the Biden Administration, this is a clear shift back towards Ukraine. In my opinion, there are three main reasons for this shift and they are not mutually exclusive. Firstly, while Trump is still immensely popular with his voter base and the clear leader of the American right-wing, he must acknowledge the influence exerted by other members of the Republican party, many of whom have been in office for decades and still hold on to their “Cold War perspective” on Russia. Secondly, Europe’s unprecedented willingness to rapidly rearm itself and Ukraine in order to reduce their reliance on the United States’ security umbrella may have induced a sense of insecurity regarding America’s leverage in the negotiations. If the Ukrainians would not need to rely on American weapons to fight the war, they would not need to respect America’s position on what would constitute an acceptable peace settlement. Lastly, it is possible that Trump may have felt personally slighted by Putin’s actions and statements. Having claimed for the past decade that he has a “good relationship” with the Russian President, it may have come as a shock to Trump that Putin would take advantage of his efforts to end the war as quickly as possible. The domestic political backlash that Trump faced as he appeared to be making concessions to Russia may have motivated him to change course.

Finally, we come to the Ukrainian attack on Russia’s airbases and the partial destruction of its fleet of strategic bombers. While the Biden Administration had provided more weapons to Ukraine, it also imposed restrictions on their use, mainly that they would not be employed in Russian territory. While these restrictions were later eased, we can infer that there was pressure exerted by NATO on Ukraine to limit its military operations to its own borders. This is the major change brought about by Trump’s new stance. By allowing Ukraine to conduct strikes within Russian territory, the United States and its European allies have issued a clear statement to Vladimir Putin. While the Trump Administrations goal, to achieve an end to the war as quickly as possible, remains unchanged, it has now shown that it is also willing to apply pressure on Russia to achieve this.

The Ukrainian attack which targeted five Russian airfields and allegedly destroyed, or at least disabled, around 40 Russian heavy bombers along with numerous other assets is projected to have inflicted approximately $7 billion in damages. This strike was clearly meant to target Russia’s capacity to fund its war effort and exacerbate the issues it faces with maintaining the potency of its armed forces under the economic pressure exerted by Western sanctions. While the Ukrainian government has claimed that it did not inform the United States before conducting this strike, the fact that it comes so soon after Washington and its European allies lifted the restriction on attacks within Russian territory tells us that America’s stance was a deciding factor for Ukrainian leadership to allow the operation to move forward. This attack, which showcased the potential of drone warfare, has been a major morale booster for the Ukrainian side through which it has shown its express rejection of an imposed peace settlement. Whether this attack bolsters their position in the peace negotiations or forces Russia to respond in kind and intensify the conflict, thereby damaging any chance of a ceasefire, remains to be seen. Wars are fought, first on the battlefield, and then on the negotiation table. The next test for the Ukrainian government will be whether it can convert this military victory into a diplomatic one.