The Russia-Ukraine war has transformed from a regional conflict into a larger geopolitical battle, reshaping global power structures, trade relations, and strategic alliances. While the Biden administration has fueled the war through military aid and economic pressure, Trump’s emerging approach focuses on a broader realignment—one that simultaneously benefits U.S. defense and energy sectors, appeals to his voter base, and cements his image as a global peacemaker. His strategy is not just about ending the war but about using its resolution to reposition the U.S. as the dominant force in global trade and diplomacy, all while using tariffs as a weapon to restore what he sees as a more favorable trade balance for America.
The first pillar of Trump’s strategy is realigning the defense lobby. The military-industrial complex has thrived on prolonged war, with billions flowing into U.S. defense contractors as NATO allies ramp up their military spending. But Trump understands that direct U.S. military aid to Ukraine is not a sustainable political move. Instead, he will pressure European countries to increase their defense spending commitments under NATO, ensuring that U.S. arms manufacturers continue profiting, even if Washington itself scales back direct involvement. By forcing Europe to meet or exceed its 2% GDP target for defense, he shifts the burden of funding Ukraine’s war effort onto European nations while keeping American arms exports as the primary beneficiary. This strategy allows Trump to maintain the support of the defense industry without being drawn into costly, long-term military commitments that weaken his political appeal among voters who prefer economic nationalism over foreign intervention.
The second pillar involves recalibrating the energy sector. Under Biden, the U.S. positioned itself as Europe’s primary supplier of liquefied natural gas, replacing Russian gas with American LNG at significantly higher prices. This created resentment among some European nations that saw it as an economic squeeze rather than a strategic partnership. Trump, however, is likely to take a different approach—allowing a controlled return of Russian energy into the European market while ensuring that U.S. energy companies secure long-term contracts first. If he can negotiate terms where Russia is permitted limited gas exports but under a framework that still benefits U.S. producers, he can rebalance global energy markets in America’s favor. This strategy also serves a broader purpose: weakening China’s exclusive access to Russian energy by shifting some of Moscow’s exports back toward Europe, forcing Beijing to seek alternative sources and potentially increasing its reliance on American allies in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the ongoing negotiations underscores the role of energy diplomacy in the realignment. Riyadh is well-positioned to manage the balance between Russian, U.S., and Middle Eastern energy interests, ensuring that any peace deal factors in global oil pricing and production levels. By controlling these discussions, Trump keeps European energy security tied to American and Gulf-state interests, preventing Russia from regaining full leverage while keeping Europe economically dependent on U.S. policy decisions.
The third pillar of Trump’s strategy is political—appealing to his voter base by positioning himself as the only leader capable of bringing peace. While Biden justified his approach by framing the war as a fight for democracy, Trump will counter this by arguing that continued war leads to unnecessary deaths and economic decline. His message to American voters will be clear: Biden wasted billions on a war that could have been settled long ago, while Trump is the leader who will stop the bloodshed and redirect those resources toward domestic growth. This approach allows him to appeal to multiple segments of the electorate—fiscal conservatives concerned about government spending, working-class voters affected by inflation, and foreign policy skeptics who oppose U.S. military entanglements. But his narrative will not just be confined to the U.S.; globally, he will seek to position himself as the only statesman capable of preventing further escalation. His direct talks with Russia while bypassing European leaders reinforce this image. If he succeeds in negotiating a ceasefire, he will claim the title of the leader who stopped a war that others prolonged for political and financial gain. This will appeal to war-fatigued populations not just in the West but also in non-aligned nations in the Global South, where skepticism of Western interventionism is already high.
Alongside these moves, Trump will employ his signature trade weapon—tariffs. His economic philosophy is centered on trade imbalances and American self-reliance, and the Ukraine war provides a pretext to renegotiate global trade relationships. If European nations resist his defense spending demands or energy trade conditions, tariffs on European goods will become a bargaining tool, forcing them into economic concessions. He has already threatened tariffs on European auto exports, and this could expand into other industries, ensuring that any geopolitical realignment also serves U.S. manufacturing and trade interests. China will also face increased tariff pressure, especially if Beijing attempts to profit from post-war reconstruction efforts in Ukraine. This will allow Trump to frame his economic policies as part of a broader “America First” vision, strengthening U.S. domestic industries while recalibrating global trade to reduce foreign dependencies.
As these elements come together, the geopolitical order will shift dramatically. Europe, sidelined from U.S.-Russia negotiations, may be forced into a more independent security and energy strategy, but it will struggle to do so without American backing. NATO’s role will change, with the U.S. demanding less financial commitment while pushing Europe to militarize on its own dime. Russia, if it secures a limited return to the European energy market, will find itself balancing between Beijing and Washington, preventing it from becoming too dependent on either. China, having used the war to secure Russian energy at discounted rates, may now have to reconfigure its supply chains if Moscow shifts some of its focus back toward the West. The Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will emerge stronger, acting as the brokers of energy diplomacy while playing both sides to maintain pricing control.
If Trump succeeds, the world will enter a phase where energy markets are structured around transactional diplomacy rather than ideological alliances, where military spending is dictated by economic strategy rather than prolonged conflict, and where trade balances are realigned through tariffs and negotiations rather than blanket sanctions. The long-term stability of this new order remains uncertain, but the immediate impact will be clear: a shift away from Biden’s war-driven economy toward a post-war realignment where defense, energy, and political leverage are recalibrated to benefit America first. Whether this creates a more stable global landscape or merely a restructured power struggle will depend on how other players react to Washington’s new terms. But one thing is certain—Trump’s strategy is not just about peace; it is about redefining global influence on his terms.
Trump-Putin Talks and U.S.-Ukraine Negotiations Signal Tentative Steps Toward Peace
March 19, 2025 – Recent diplomatic efforts between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have sparked cautious optimism for de-escalating the ongoing war in Ukraine, though significant hurdles remain. A flurry of high-level talks—spanning a Trump-Putin phone call, a U.S.-Ukraine meeting in Jeddah, and earlier U.S.-Russia discussions in Riyadh—has yielded concrete steps like prisoner exchanges and a partial ceasefire, but broader resolutions on territory and security guarantees are still elusive.
On March 18, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a 90-minute phone call, their second known contact since Trump’s inauguration. The White House touted the discussion as a breakthrough, with Russia agreeing to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days—a narrow but tangible de-escalation. The Kremlin confirmed this pause, while emphasizing Putin’s conditions, including ending NATO expansion and foreign military aid to Kyiv. Both leaders committed to “fresh peace talks” in the Middle East and finalized a prisoner exchange for March 19, swapping 175 captives each and returning 23 wounded Ukrainians. A lighter note saw Trump back Putin’s idea for U.S.-Russia hockey matches, signaling a thaw in bilateral ties.
This call built on groundwork laid earlier. On March 11, U.S. and Ukrainian officials met in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to mend ties after a tense February 28 White House spat between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Jeddah talks, attended by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Ukrainian aides like Andriy Yermak, produced a joint statement outlining resumed U.S. security aid, a 30-day ceasefire proposal (now partially adopted by Russia), and plans for negotiating teams. Zelenskyy called it a “positive step,” while Rubio expressed hope Russia would fully commit. Humanitarian goals, including prisoner releases and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children, were also advanced, though only the prisoner swap has materialized via Trump-Putin efforts.
The roots of these talks trace back to February 18, when U.S. and Russian officials met in Riyadh without Ukraine present. That meeting set the stage for peace negotiations, with Washington and Moscow agreeing to form teams—a process now accelerating. Yet, Russia’s maximalist demands, like Ukraine ceding occupied territories, remain unmet, and Kyiv’s call for ironclad security guarantees lingers unresolved.
Official statements reflect divergent priorities. Washington’s White House releases project optimism about ending the war swiftly, while the Kremlin’s readouts on kremlin.ru underscore addressing “root causes” like NATO’s role. Ukraine, meanwhile, balances cautious engagement with firm resistance to territorial concessions, as seen in posts from advisors on X.
For now, achievements are incremental: a limited ceasefire, a prisoner swap, and a framework for talks. But with Russia yet to embrace a full ceasefire, and territorial disputes unaddressed, the path to lasting peace remains uncertain. As negotiations unfold, the world watches whether Trump’s personal diplomacy can bridge the gap between Moscow’s rigidity and Ukraine’s resilience.
Maq Masi Blog 
Leave a comment