Trump era: Kyiv Security Forum international overview

Experts of the Kyiv Security Forum shared their analysis.

Given the diametrically opposing interests of the parties involved in the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump’s ambitious but detail-free promises to end it within 24 hours are a particular cause for concern. During his campaign, some of Trump’s allies expressed differing opinions on potential settlement options, often directly contradicting one another.

Some proposed freezing the conflict and bringing the parties to the negotiation table to "work things out." This approach would involve suspending military aid to Ukraine and pressuring Russia with threats to renew support if Moscow proves unyielding. Under this scenario, a compromise could likely be achieved only at Ukraine’s expense, including territorial concessions, which the proponents openly acknowledged.

There were also other proposals based on the principle of "peace through strength." This scenario also envisioned negotiations and the establishment of demilitarized zones along the front line. Here, the primary leverage would be enhanced arms support for Ukraine and threats from the U.S. of severe measures if Moscow resists. This could potentially lay the groundwork for more acceptable agreements, but even then, a rapid restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity would not be guaranteed.

As of now, Trump has not clarified which version of a “24-hour end” to the war he might pursue. His advisors and prospective foreign policy and defense appointees continue to prepare him with new ideas.

Until January 20, Ukraine and the current White House administration still have over two months to create the most favorable initial conditions for implementing Trump's scenario. President Joe Biden appears ready to use his remaining time in office to fully honor U.S. commitments to Ukraine within the funding allocated by Congress, totaling more than $6 billion.

Moscow is also speculating on the ambiguity of Trump’s ideas for ending the war. Evidence of this includes Putin’s lack of an official congratulatory message to Trump after his election victory, along with comments from his spokesperson Peskov and Foreign Ministry representative Zakharova. Moscow remembers the end of Trump’s previous term well—marked by then-highest sanctions and an absence of political dialogue.

Trump’s plans for the Middle East are equally controversial. His strong support for Israel, evidenced by both campaign statements and his actions during his first term, does not entirely align with a quick end to the ongoing conflict, which Tel Aviv itself is conducting. Thus, Israel has roughly two months to execute its plans regarding Gaza and Lebanon, or they might conflict with maintaining good relations with the incoming U.S. administration. However, this does not apply to Iran, where Netanyahu’s interests might align with Trump’s, given Trump’s historically hard stance on Tehran.

Beijing is likely far from thrilled with Trump’s victory, even though Xi Jinping, unlike Putin, did congratulate him. China is at minimum anticipating a significant increase in tariffs on exports to the U.S. And if Beijing hinders Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine, particularly through its dual-use exports to Russia, the new U.S. administration's reaction may be considerably tougher than Biden’s selective, targeted sanctions.

Trump also hopes to expand U.S. energy production significantly to lower global energy prices. This plan could align with the interests of another global energy exporter—Saudi Arabia. In such a case, success might be assured.

As a result of using both “carrot and stick” arguments, the activities of the newly emerging “axis of evil” under the new administration may slow somewhat. However, if Washington adopts a targeted isolationist policy, this may not happen and could instead deepen cooperation between key players in the Global South.

Finally, Europe. While no one predicts dramatic changes such as a U.S. exit from NATO, some adjustments are expected, and preparations are underway. This includes bolstering Europe’s security autonomy and facing potential economic complications with the U.S. over Trump’s promised tariffs on European goods. Nonetheless, these changes could bring a positive outcome—increasing the EU’s geopolitical influence and advancing its security and foreign policy autonomy. Brussels and other European capitals have the resources to achieve this.