By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in a recent phone call with former US President Donald Trump, requested he broker peace in Ukraine, citing Trump’s recent ceasefire efforts in the Middle East as a precedent. The call occurred shortly after a large-scale Russian attack on Ukraine’s energy grid, which caused widespread power outages. Zelensky urged Trump to pressure Russia into negotiations to end the ongoing conflict, hoping that success in one region could lead to success in another. While Trump and Putin previously met in August, they failed to establish a peace deal.
Read the original article here
Zelensky’s primary focus is on ending the war in Ukraine, and he’s cleverly adapting his approach to resonate with Donald Trump, recognizing that appealing to Trump’s ego might be the most effective strategy. This approach, while potentially seen as “bending the knee,” is, in reality, a calculated move to secure his nation’s survival. The situation demands a pragmatic response, and Zelensky appears to be learning the art of “playing Trump” in order to achieve his goals.
The comparison to the Middle East, specifically how Trump dealt with the conflicts there, is a central point of the argument. The idea is that the situation in Ukraine could be resolved by giving Ukraine the support it needs to decisively defeat its aggressors, mirroring a perceived approach in the Middle East where support was provided to Israel. However, it’s immediately apparent that the situation isn’t a perfect parallel. The Middle East dynamics are significantly different, and whether or not the situation there was truly “ended” remains debatable.
The proposed peace deal currently on the table for Zelensky is also a key part of the conversation. This deal suggests that Russia would retain its current territorial holdings in Ukraine, with a demilitarized zone created along a new border, overseen by a neutral peacekeeping force. Furthermore, Ukraine would receive NATO and EU membership, and sanctions against Russia would be converted into tariffs, with the revenue directed to Ukraine.
But the reality is that such a deal isn’t a guaranteed path to a lasting peace, and many aspects could potentially be detrimental to Ukraine. It may involve conceding significant land to Russia or, at the very least, establishing a de facto situation that mirrors such a concession.
The fact is that the Middle East conflict’s resolution, or lack thereof, is also a highly contested issue. The war in the Middle East has not ended but rather is an ongoing situation, further complicating the comparison. Hamas, for example, is still fighting, and the long-term consequences are still unknown.
The strategic support and resources provided by the US can’t be understated. The question becomes whether Trump would truly provide Ukraine with the all-out support it would need to defeat Russia, and this is where it gets complex. The perception is that Trump might be more inclined to favor a deal that appeases Putin, which could leave Ukraine with a significantly reduced territory or in a weakened position.
There’s also the complex game of diplomacy and the necessity to navigate Trump’s personality. The current approach involves flattery and the recognition that antagonizing Trump is counterproductive. The idea is to “play him like a fiddle,” which is a survival tactic when you’re dealing with a powerful figure who’s known to be unpredictable.
The fact is that there is nothing to be gained from antagonizing Trump, and, for many, playing to his ego makes logical sense. It is a calculated gamble that Ukraine can benefit from by playing the game in a way that is designed to appeal to him. But the risks are substantial, especially when the potential outcomes involve significant territorial concessions or a weakened Ukraine.
This scenario raises important questions about what a true resolution would look like and what kind of support would be required. The best-case scenario would be supporting Ukraine so it can defeat Russia on the battlefield, the same way, the proponents believe, the Middle East situations were “ended.” The most likely situation, however, is a negotiated settlement that favors Russia and leaves Ukraine vulnerable. The challenge for Zelensky is to maneuver this situation in such a way that it protects his country’s long-term interests and its sovereignty.