Greenland war is over. How to turn Trump's face to Ukraine

1. After the off-the-charts escalation of stakes regarding Greenland, the time has come for more realistic negotiations. And here we have positive news: Trump personally confirmed that he is canceling tariffs against Europeans and that he likes Mark Rutte's idea of obtaining American sovereignty over small parts of Greenland to build military bases. If everything goes normally, and it seems this scenario is baseline, the Greenland question will become another symbolic star on Trump's fuselage. But this doesn't cancel all those fundamental challenges that Trump has launched. And, I repeat, we have to live with Trump for the next three years.

2. The Peace Council is, unfortunately, one of the challenges that will require a response. This structure will not replace the UN, it has every chance of dying quite quickly and, possibly, was invented by someone from Trump's circle to knock down his obsessive idea of running for a third term. After all, why be president of the U.S. if you can become king of the world.

But these are hypotheses about the future. For now, Trump will play the UN-2.0 game and a large part of the world will be forced to play along with him. We have no choice here: we must buy time for now, watch whether they develop a consolidated position in the EU and whether Russia will want to join this council. 

"Our approach here must be maximally pragmatic: if it helps in the peace process — we join, if it doesn't help — we don't join."

All these pompous things like "how can we be in one organization with Russia and Belarus" are counterproductive. We will be, if necessary, just as in the UN. The Peace Council for now looks like a temporary phenomenon, which should be treated exactly that way right now.

3. After Greenland, Trump will have freed up time for Ukraine and Iran. I have no doubt that now Putin will propose some unacceptable peace conditions and the entire negotiation process will go into a new round. I'll repeat what I wrote the day before: the negotiation construct that has existed until now has reached a dead end. Because we are completely dependent on the U.S. as the main negotiator, we have no other option than to seek an answer to the question: "Why is this war not beneficial to the U.S.". One can continue living in the quadrilateral "territories — lifting sanctions from Russia — benefits for the U.S. — European values," but in a year we've achieved practically nothing. The same cards are on the table, and in 2026 they will remain unchanged.

4. The campaign "the war is not beneficial to Trump" is complex and systemic. But if you approach it precisely as a campaign, and not as a cavalry charge, it can be played.

Source

About the author: Vadym Denysenko, political scientist.

The editorial office does not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.