By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy expressed confidence that the war in Ukraine could conclude in 2024, citing the potential for American and European support to pressure Russia. He highlighted the role of strong partnerships with the US and EU, particularly emphasizing increased European arms production as a deterrent to further Russian aggression. Zelenskyy also suggested that a potential Trump presidency could leverage its influence on Russia to facilitate peace negotiations, contingent upon clear security guarantees for Ukraine. This pressure, combined with strengthened European defense capabilities, could force Putin into diplomatic solutions.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy believes there’s a real possibility of ending the war in Ukraine this year, and he sees a surprising path towards that goal: Donald Trump putting pressure on Russia. It’s a bold claim, given the complex relationship between Trump and Putin, and the widely varying opinions on Trump’s potential influence on the conflict. Many believe Trump’s past rhetoric and actions suggest an affinity for Putin, making the notion of him pressuring the Russian leader seem far-fetched.
The idea that Trump could exert pressure on Russia hinges on the perceived fear Russia holds of both the US and China. Zelenskyy seems to believe that Trump, leveraging this fear, could push for diplomatic solutions and an end to the fighting. This scenario presupposes a willingness on Trump’s part to act against his perceived interests in aligning with Russia and prioritising a resolution in Ukraine.
However, skepticism surrounding this idea is overwhelming. Many commentators point to Trump’s history of praising Putin and expressing admiration for his actions, directly contradicting the notion of him effectively pressuring the Russian president. The belief that Trump would prioritize his own self-interest above any commitment to resolving the conflict in Ukraine is prevalent. Some even suggest Russia may attempt to exert pressure on Trump, effectively turning the proposed scenario on its head.
The suggestion that Trump could put pressure on Russia is met with ridicule by many. They see it as an unrealistic expectation, suggesting alternative—and perhaps more plausible—scenarios like a coordinated international effort, or even improbable events like a series of unforeseen occurrences that remove the current Russian leadership. The idea of a coordinated international effort carries weight, yet it remains hampered by political divisions and national interests.
The contrasting perspectives on Trump’s potential role highlight the deep divisions surrounding the conflict and the various interpretations of his influence. Some even see a potential for Trump to act in ways detrimental to Ukraine’s interests, such as withdrawing support or accepting unfavorable concessions from Russia.
Zelenskyy’s position seems to be based on a calculated assessment of Trump’s potential influence and the need to explore all possible avenues for peace. The Ukrainian president stresses the importance of securing concrete security guarantees for Ukraine should Trump play a mediating role. These guarantees would not only benefit Europe but also signal to Russia that Ukraine possesses the means, with Western support, to defend itself against future aggression. This emphasizes Zelenskyy’s belief in the power of deterrence.
Strengthening Europe’s defense capabilities is another key element in Zelenskyy’s strategy. He advocates for increased arms production within the EU, arguing this would demonstrate Europe’s ability to defend itself and force Putin to reconsider his aggressive actions. This approach seeks to shift the power dynamic, creating a stronger deterrent against further Russian aggression and potentially paving the way for negotiations.
The overall impression is one of a complex situation with multiple moving parts. The idea of Trump playing a significant role in ending the war is certainly controversial, even provocative. While Zelenskyy’s optimism might seem far-fetched, it points to a willingness to consider unorthodox strategies in seeking to achieve a peaceful resolution. However, the widely held view is that the path to peace is far more likely to emerge from concerted international action, strengthened European defense, and consistent support for Ukraine’s sovereignty rather than relying on the unpredictable actions of a single individual. The success of such endeavors, ultimately, remains uncertain.