The Ukraine war: Trump’s biggest deal yet?

President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to secure a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire before his 20 January inauguration, aiming to resolve the conflict within two months. While initially met with scepticism, emerging information suggests Trump and his team may be well-prepared and determined to achieve this ambitious goal.

The Russia-Ukraine war has been ongoing for over 1,000 days — nearly three years. The enigma lies in the fact that while Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategy in Ukraine has largely faltered, some elements remain resilient and have even gained traction as negotiation leverage. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s defence efforts have been generally successful, yet challenges persist, and a resolution remains elusive.

In terms of foreign aid, the US and NATO have consistently supported Ukraine. However, they have been cautious and hesitant in the extent of their support, fearing that provoking Putin and Russia could lead to an escalation of the war or even a nuclear conflict. Despite facing international sanctions and criticism, Russia has received substantial backing from North Korea, Iran and China, and continues to fund the war through energy exports.

Overall, Russia and Ukraine each have their respective strategic advantages and disadvantages, much like the external support they receive, resulting in a stalemate and a brutal and unresolved conflict. This is the complex situation the Trump administration is about to face.

Initially, it was believed that Trump would exert extreme pressure on both Russia and Ukraine to secure a ceasefire before engaging in negotiations. However, this seemingly neutral approach was rejected by both sides. Ukraine declared it would never agree to a “land for peace” ceasefire, stating it would continue fighting even if the US threatened to cut military aid, and hinted at possibly developing its own nuclear weapons.

For Russia and Putin, accepting a ceasefire would mean acknowledging Ukraine’s occupation of over 1,000 square kilometres in the Kursk region, a scenario Putin finds unacceptable. Despite the efforts of Russian troops and the support of North Korean soldiers, the Russian military has been unable to expel Ukrainian forces from the Kursk region.

Trump’s proposal for a ceasefire has faced significant opposition and criticism both within the US and among NATO members. Its implementation could legitimise Putin’s invasion, compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty, and destabilise peace in Europe. Invaders often become emboldened by success, potentially triggering a domino effect that escalates conflicts in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific, resulting in consequences that are contrary to US strategic interests and untenable.

However, Trump’s proposed solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict remains hearsay; there has not been an official announcement. Recent information suggests that Trump’s plan does not call for an immediate ceasefire but a conditional one in Ukraine’s favour. It requires Russia to withdraw to the pre-February 2022 borders before starting ceasefire negotiations.

Some might question whether Putin would accept such a condition. Trump’s strategy of applying extreme pressure is expected to come into play here. The Biden administration approved Ukraine’s use of American missiles to strike Russian and North Korean forces in the Kursk region on 17 November, and the UK and France could send combat troops directly to Ukraine. If Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons, Trump is primed to meet him head on, taking up the gauntlet when it comes to nuclear capability.

While intensifying sanctions on Russia, the US and the EU also plan to have Putin’s legs cut out from under him by stabilising Iran, pressuring China and containing North Korea. This would isolate Putin and leave him no choice but to retreat and cease fire. 

Trump could stabilise Iran by supporting Israel in dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities or even pushing for a regime change. To pressure China to withdraw support for Russia, Trump would likely threaten to revoke China’s “most favoured nation” (MFN) status, increasing tariffs and reigniting the China-US trade war. As for North Korea, the US, Japan and South Korea might conduct ground or sea-based military operations to divert the Kim Jong Un administration’s attention from aiding Russia. 

Trump is also expected to issue stern warnings and admonitions to countries such as India and Turkey — perceived as fence sitters — to cut off the financial streams supporting Russia’s war efforts. In contrast to the Biden administration’s limited assistance and wait-and-see approach, the Trump administration intends to be proactive, exerting extreme pressure to swiftly compel Putin and Russia to agree to a ceasefire.

Various indicators suggest that Trump and his team aim to swiftly resolve the Russia-Ukraine stalemate, driven by the broader strategic goal of concentrating on the challenge posed by China.

Thus, while wielding a stick against Putin, Trump also has ample carrots to offer: if Russia agrees to withdraw and to a ceasefire, economic sanctions by the US and Europe would be comprehensively lifted, issues in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea could be set aside or placed under UN administration, Ukraine would not join NATO for 20 years, Putin would be exempt from war crime charges, and so forth. 

Putin faces a choice: continue to fight and remain isolated, or cease hostilities and preserve himself. Trump’s businessman nature most likely led him to offer these incentives and trade-offs to Putin; it remains to be seen if Putin will take the bait. 

This suggests that Trump’s proactive and extreme pressure strategy could place China and Russia in a “prisoner’s dilemma”. In this strategic competition, China and Russia might confront a conflict between cooperation and self-interest, where their optimal individual choices may not align with their shared best interests.

Trump might say to China: stop supporting Russia, and China’s MFN nation status would be maintained and tariffs would not be increased, allowing the US and China to continue trading. If China withdraws its support, it could lead to Russia losing the war in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Trump could assert to Russia that a ceasefire and withdrawal of troops would mean the Russian homeland is spared from conflict, the economy would be able to recover quickly, and Ukraine would not join NATO. If Russia were to accept these terms offered by the US, it could leave China isolated.

If either China or Russia agrees to Trump’s proposal, it could push the current partnership between China and Russia to the brink of crisis and collapse. This “prisoner’s dilemma” scenario is the core motivation and objective of the extreme pressure strategy adopted by Trump’s team.

From the China-Russia perspective, this “prisoner’s dilemma” indeed poses an unprecedented challenge. For China, Russia’s success or failure in Ukraine is relatively secondary; the key is for both countries to continue supporting each other. Once a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine is achieved, US forces could entirely shift eastward, mounting pressure on China. If China ceases its support for Russia in order to maintain normal trade relations with the US, Putin’s war in Ukraine would become unsustainable.

Thus, China and Russia have limited options, unless China is willing to engage in an intense trade war with the US and Russia is willing to confront both the US and NATO directly. This would require a formal alliance between Russia and China, with Russia fully supporting China’s economy and China fully supporting Russia’s war efforts.

However, given Russia’s weak economy, how much can it really support China’s economy? China’s support for Russia in the war relies mainly on its economic strength. If a comprehensive trade war with the US and Europe occurs, will China’s economic situation face an even greater crisis?

With Trump’s new administration largely settled, notably with a pronounced hawkish stance towards national security, foreign affairs and trade, intervention in the Ukraine situation is already underway. In the strategic opportunity window of less than two months, interactions and strategic manoeuvres among the various parties are reaching a climax, which could potentially lead to major changes in the current international landscape.

Some suggest that China could rely on Elon Musk, who has commercial interests in the country, to communicate with the US — but would that be reliable? Ultimately, at critical junctures, China must rely on its own judgment and decisions.

Related: [Big read] ‘America First’ returns: How Trump will reshape the world | Trump’s return: Can China offer an alternative to US unpredictability?