The United States has long held a complicated position on the global stage, balancing its image as a superpower with the perception of being a hegemon that often prioritizes its strategic interests over global peace. Such a complex position is the evidence of its involvement in numerous conflicts, including the Gulf War (1990-1991), the Afghanistan War (2001-2021), the Iraq War (2003-2011), intervention in Libya, Syria, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Donald Trump’s approach to world conflicts can be seen as attempting to adopt a social constructivist approach by emphasizing the role of ideas, beliefs, and identities in shaping international relations. This is reflected in his efforts to redefine the US’s role in global conflicts, such as his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and his approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In these circumstances, the US is now trying to portray itself as a peacemaking country that values diplomacy and stability and has been trying to recalibrate its state of the world.
Under the Biden administration, the US has taken a rigid and interfering position in the Russia-Ukraine war by providing extensive military and economic aid to Ukraine with its NATO and European Union allies. Ukraine’s location along the Black Sea gives NATO and the US strategic interests in the region; the Black Sea’s strategic importance for the alliance seeks to maintain stability and security in this area. From the strategic perspective, Ukraine holds significant importance for both Russia and NATO in maintaining a balance of power in the region. NATO and US support have enabled Ukraine to build a firm defense against Russia’s invasion, preventing Moscow from achieving its objectives. Russia seeks to maintain influence over former Soviet states; hence, NATO’s involvement sparks tensions, reminiscent of the Cold War, and great power rivalries redefine the global security landscape.
President-elect Donald Trump appears to be strategically reshaping ‘’The Great America’’ global image to reinforce the US status as a superpower by transitioning from a perceived instigator of conflicts to a broker of peace through diplomatic efforts in high-profile conflicts. This has led to questions about whether the US is genuinely committed to peace or using wars to maintain global dominance. Trump’s return to the political stage is seen as part of a broader strategy to shift this narrative, presenting him as a leader focused on ending wars, initiating peace talks, and “fixing the mess” caused by his predecessor. By emphasizing diplomacy and de-escalation, Trump seeks to rebuild the US’s image as a superpower not just of military might but also of moral leadership. However, skeptics question whether this shift is genuine or merely a tactical move to regain global influence and reposition the US as a hegemonic power under a new guise.
Looking ahead, the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the wide trajectory of US foreign policy will depend on several key factors. Eventually, if Trump prioritizes direct diplomacy with Russia and seeks to bypass NATO and the EU, it could fundamentally alter the dynamics of the Western alliance. NATO’s unity has been a cornerstone of the response to the Russia-Ukraine war, but Trump’s willingness to engage unilaterally with Putin could weaken that cohesion. By excluding NATO and the EU in favor of bilateral talks, the US might secure a ceasefire or peace deal more quickly, but it would do so at the cost of undermining the collective security framework that has defined the post-Cold War order.
Before the election, President-elect Donald Trump has given a statement that within 24 hours, he could stop the war if he were president, but this claim has become very challenging for him. Trump recently met with Ukrainian President Zelensky, and they reached a mutual understanding regarding negotiations and a diplomatic approach.
Russia’s foreign minister rejected the Kellogg Ukraine Plan proposed by the President-elect Donald Trump’s team and Ukrainian President Zelensky. We are not happy, of course, with the proposals made by the Trump advisory team to postpone Ukraine’s membership in NATO for the next 2 decades and to station British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. Russia has prohibited negotiations with any European Union nation and Ukraine but is willing to sit down and negotiate with the US regarding a resolution to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Russia has completely abandoned the idea of a two-decade postponement but firmly insists on permanently dismissing the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership. Additionally, Russia is seeking international recognition for the territories it occupies, which now account for approximately 20% of Ukraine, including Crimea and parts of eastern and southern Ukraine.
President Zelensky has been strategically enhancing his influence, but he was not involved in negotiations while the US and NATO members provided extensive financial and military support. Now Zelensky is articulating his vision with statements emphasizing the urgent need for diplomatic efforts, declaring, “We must do everything possible to ensure that this year marks the end of the war through diplomacy.” This shift reflects his desire to win over Trump, foster dialogue, and seek a peaceful resolution amid ongoing conflict. Now Ukraine is at the mercy of US and European support; without their help, Ukraine cannot do something. In a remarkable shift, Zelensky himself recently acknowledged that Ukraine cannot reclaim the lost territories through military means and even suggested that he would be willing to cede territory in exchange for NATO protection. Later, through diplomatic manners, to get back Ukrainians living under Russian occupation in Crimea, the eastern Donbas region, and the southern cities of Melitopol and Mariupol.
Conclusion:
It is understood that Putin is wary of being drawn into the Western sphere of influence, as well as the presence of Western troops close to Russia’s borders. These concerns reflect a desire for national security and sovereignty. However, despite making bold claims during his election campaign that he would end the war “within 24 hours,” resolving the conflict is likely to prove very challenging, as Trump himself now admits. Both sides, Russia and Ukraine, are ready to negotiate and also cleared their expected demands to end the war. Although an official delegation is not sent by President-elect Trump or Ukraine, the central question now revolves around whether Trump is prepared to address Russia’s counter-demands, as President Putin seeks long-term agreements, more commitments, and guarantees. Trump and President Zelensky have proposed a two-decade postponement for Ukraine’s NATO membership, but Putin is unlikely to fully accept this plan, effectively dismissing the prospect of Ukraine’s accession to NATO. The 21st-century leadership strategy aims to reshape the US image, transitioning from a reliance on financial power, weaponry, and military aid to becoming a key advocate for peace talks and diplomatic solutions. Trump’s invitation to China’s president during his inauguration is a demonstration of the US being ready to actively cooperate and establish good relations with the world. President of China Xi Jinping’s support could bolster Trump’s ambition to bring the conflict between Moscow and Kyiv to the negotiation table, using a balancing pressure and motivation to encourage dialogue. Although Trump may find himself in agreement with certain demands put forth by Putin, it’s important to note that NATO and the European Union may not necessarily align with this perspective. The strategy is ambitious and complicated, so it requires careful execution and represents one of the toughest challenges of Trump’s presidency thus far. Despite these hurdles, considering flexibility, there is still a light of hope for achieving significant resolutions and fostering a transformation in the landscape of global diplomacy.
