By Harsh V Pant & Vivek Mishra
Well into his second presidency, Donald Trump is busy rewriting the rules of political theatre at home and global diplomacy abroad. To some, Trump’s unconventional approach is seemingly highlighting areas where policy clarity might be needed, which may have been missing earlier. The rapidly evolving contours of Washington’s Ukraine policy is perhaps the most prominent area missing from that landscape. Except the logic of ending the war, there is no clarity as of now about the way to reach there.
On March 19, when Trump held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to push the acceptance of a limited ceasefire it signalled three distinct urges — enforce a ceasefire, even if temporary; reset Russia-US ties; and a recalibration in America’s approach to transatlantic security. Despite the deal being narrow in scope, it may be the much needed first step in de-escalation between Russia and Ukraine.
The evolving security dynamics in Europe, particularly in relation to transatlantic security, present a complex landscape of both challenges and opportunities. First, they compel a distinct approach from the US — one that markedly deviates from past presidencies, especially the last four years. Second, America’s changing approach to transatlantic security has both positive and negative implications for Europe. While it underscores the necessity for Europe to take greater ownership of its security, it also exposes vulnerabilities in the near term. For instance, Europe’s reliance on American assistance in long-range aerial defence, especially against Russian ballistic missiles, remains irreplaceable. In the longer run, Europe’s increasing role in transatlantic and continental security — particularly in Ukraine’s defence — may prove to be a strategic boon, reducing reliance on Washington. In the immediate future, Europe’s security architecture remains ill-equipped to fill the potential void left by America’s shifting stance. Ukraine, in particular, faces significant short-term challenges as European military contributions, even if enhanced, cannot fully compensate for American military, economic, and strategic support.
With the Trump presidency having made it abundantly clear that Europe’s security dependence on the US must change, the road to carving its own security arc — pan-European security framework — is a long one for the latter. The Trump administration’s proposal of a mineral deal with Ukraine whereby Washington increases its stakes with Kiev signals a sharp pivot, transforming security assistance into an overtly mercantile arrangement that prioritises American strategic and financial interests.
Since his presidential campaign, Trump has consistently emphasised the need for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, playing up his ability to resolve the conflict in 24 hours. More than 50 days into his presidency, his administration’s achievements on the front have been sobering, reflecting the fraught nature of a continental war that has dragged on for more than three years. Yet, the limited ceasefire Trump secured — which hinges on a conditional agreement preventing either Ukraine or Russia from targeting each other’s energy infrastructure — may be a good start, especially as the next round of talks between Moscow and Washington is slated to take place in the next few days.
Trump’s emphasis on getting a limited ceasefire may not serve the larger purpose of a complete halt to war but rather a tactical pause that allows both sides to take confidence-building measures, rebuild capacities, improve infrastructure, and, perhaps, regroup. While this agreement may ensure that Ukraine’s power grid remains intact, it comes post-winter when energy demands may have dwindled. The deal, while heralded by Trump as a diplomatic breakthrough, remains narrow in scope and to establish a framework for a sustainable peace process.
If Trump’s handling of West Asia is any template, his administration’s first instinct is to offer an olive branch or a face-saving exit from conflict. However, when negotiations stall, it may be quick to adopt a more aggressive posture. This pattern is evident in the administration’s engagement with Iran — where an initial diplomatic overture was rebuffed by Tehran, leading to a subsequent hard-line response, including coordinated strikes in Yemen alongside Israel’s attacks in Gaza. The near-simultaneous bombings of Gaza and Houthi rebel positions demonstrate this shift from diplomacy to forceful intervention, if necessary. It remains to be seen whether the initial peace overture to Moscow — if not met by steps that ensure peace — draws an uncompromising posture against Russia from the US. Moreover, in Russia, Trump faces a vastly different challenge than with Iran. Moscow remains a nuclear-armed power with a comparatively small but resilient energy-driven economy. Unlike Tehran or non-state actors like Hamas, Russia’s strategic calculus cannot be easily altered through economic or military pressure alone. Most of all, Trump’s options to retaliate against Russia remains limited in terms of economic sanctions. Perhaps for the same reason, the limited ceasefire negotiated by Trump fails to treat Ukraine and Russia as equal stakeholders. Moscow continues to play the hard ball.
As things stand, the limited ceasefire may be a good first step but it does not prevent further military engagements beyond energy infrastructure, leaving room for continued hostilities.
In some ways, Trump’s mediation efforts — while positioned as groundbreaking — expose the limitations of his administration’s transactional approach to resolving global conflicts. Whether this ceasefire serves as a stepping stone toward a broader resolution or merely a tactical manoeuvre remains to be seen. However, one thing is certain: the future of European security is being rewritten, and America’s role in shaping it is no longer as predictable as it once was.
The writers are respectively vice president for studies and foreign policy, and fellow, Americas, ORF.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.