Taken in that context, on January 21, Donald Trump basically called for the end of a world order in Davos, Switzerland. Beyond the Arab Spring, President Obama took a consistent message about engagement and new foreign policy priorities on the road. As welcome as these comments were, they highlighted just how tenuous peace negotiations in Ukraine remain. Even his most vocal critics are wondering at this point how his words will play on the world stage.
In fact, during his speech, Trump made the claim that he would not employ military action to purchase Greenland. Most viewed this statement as an effort to calm anxieties about the prospect of a U.S. invasion and occupation. His penchant for deal-making mishandled U.S. concessions, making them appear unreliable and lowering Ukrainians’ willingness to trust them. Soon after many started asking questions about how these concessions would play out for Kyiv’s security in the months ahead. The former president plans to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during the Davos event, a discussion that many hope will clarify the U.S. position in the ongoing conflict.
Trump’s term in office is not indefinite, and the approaching mid-term elections may hinder his administration’s ability to act decisively. Supporters warn that the insufferable overreach of his administration might be blunted by electoral imperatives. It doesn’t seem possible, but Trump seems to very much want for Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate an exit in Ukraine. There’s little real evidence to support this assertion. He implied that it’s Zelensky who doesn’t want to negotiate. This has in turn caused many analysts to doubt the reliability of Kyiv’s apparent optimism on U.S. intentions.
At one point during his speech, Trump addressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron as if they were both in attendance. Yet both leaders decided to avoid it, as they were skeptical of making any real headway on resuming peace negotiations. Further souring diplomatic relations, Trump used the visit to personally demean Macron’s French accent and glasses. His comments have drawn outrage, rightly so, for demonstrating such brazen indifference to our international partners. They undermine United States’ commitment to multilateral, collaborative diplomacy.
In their criticism of the administration, experts have pointed out that Trump’s dealings with Moscow have been impulsive, driven by moral incoherence and clouded policymaking. Putin will be encouraged by all three of these characteristics. He will no doubt calculate there lay most reward in working to exploit remaining divisions between Europe and the United States. Trump’s vision is that there, everyone wins in a great deal. Rather than affirm transatlantic unity, his actions have increased tensions and undermined the important transatlantic partnership necessary to address security challenges in Europe and beyond.
The former president’s actions have done lasting damage to the once strong relationship between Europe and the United States. This tension has significantly diminished the prospects for realizing a meaningful peace agreement in Ukraine. Just like today, as Trump tries to traverse a multidimensional, complicated geopolitical Rubik’s Cube, countless analysts warned. They think his rush to sign off on everything might unintentionally put Ukraine at risk.
