Trump’s Strategy in Ukraine and the Middle East Explained \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ As Donald Trump seeks to resolve conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, his approach appears to favor the stronger side while pressuring the weaker to concede. Supporters view this as pragmatic realpolitik, but history shows military power alone does not always guarantee victory. His strategy, including direct talks with Hamas and concessions to Russia, raises questions about its long-term effectiveness.
Trump’s Foreign Policy Approach: Quick Looks
- Favoring the Strong – Trump appears to offer concessions to dominant powers, like Russia, while pressuring weaker counterparts, such as Ukraine.
- Ukraine Policy – He has suspended military aid and ruled out NATO membership while urging Zelenskyy to share Ukraine’s resources with the U.S.
- Middle East Stance – Trump restored military aid to Israel and supports Netanyahu’s hardline approach against Hamas but has also engaged in direct talks with the group.
- Resistance from the Weak – Both Ukraine and Hamas remain defiant despite Trump’s attempts to pressure them into submission.
- Historical Lessons – The idea that “the strong do as they wish” has often proven flawed, as seen in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and past conflicts.
- Impact on U.S. Diplomacy – Critics argue Trump’s approach undermines traditional U.S. diplomacy, which has historically balanced power with negotiation.
Deep Look
Donald Trump’s foreign policy, especially regarding Ukraine and the Middle East, has been characterized by a willingness to reward dominant players while expecting weaker parties to yield. His defenders argue this is a form of realpolitik—an acceptance that power dynamics ultimately dictate outcomes. Critics, however, see it as a short-term strategy that prioritizes quick deals over long-term conflict resolution.
Power Over Diplomacy in Ukraine
Trump’s dealings with Ukraine have heavily favored Russia. Before even entering negotiations, he effectively conceded key points to Vladimir Putin, ruling out Ukraine’s NATO membership and freezing military aid and intelligence-sharing. Meanwhile, he has pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to share Ukraine’s mineral resources with the U.S., offering no concrete security guarantees in return.
Despite Trump’s pressure, Ukraine has not capitulated. Zelenskyy has sought support from European allies, who have pledged to strengthen their defenses. While Washington’s stance remains uncertain, Kyiv continues to resist Russian aggression.
Middle East: Supporting Israel While Engaging Hamas
Trump has firmly backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives, reinstating military aid that was previously suspended under Joe Biden. He has aligned with Netanyahu’s goals of freeing hostages and eliminating Hamas, though the feasibility of achieving both remains questionable. Unlike previous U.S. leaders, Trump has not clearly stated whether he supports a two-state solution—historically a foundation of American diplomacy in the region.
At the same time, Trump’s administration has engaged directly with Hamas, a departure from the traditional U.S. policy of working through intermediaries. While Trump publicly issues threats against Hamas, the move to negotiate directly signals a more complex strategy.
Resistance from the Weakest Players
Despite Trump’s power-focused approach, the weaker parties in these conflicts have not easily yielded. Ukraine has withstood Russian aggression longer than many expected, while Hamas continues to resist Israeli military efforts.
Even as Trump threatens Hamas, the group has dismissed his warnings and insists hostages will only be released in exchange for an end to the war. A ceasefire deal negotiated by the Biden administration and Trump’s team remains in jeopardy, with Israel threatening renewed military action.
The Limits of Military Might
History offers multiple examples of how sheer military strength does not always guarantee success. The United States, with the world’s most powerful military, failed to defeat a determined insurgency in Afghanistan despite 20 years of engagement.
The Melian Dialogue, a historical reference from the Peloponnesian War, encapsulates the belief that “the strong do as they wish, and the weak accept what they must.” However, this theory has been challenged repeatedly. Athens ultimately lost to Sparta, Ukraine continues to defy Russian invasion, and Hamas has survived multiple wars against Israel.
Trump’s Approach: Breaking from Traditional U.S. Diplomacy
For decades, successful U.S. diplomatic efforts have relied on a more balanced approach. The 1978 Camp David Accords, brokered by President Jimmy Carter, only succeeded after he pressured both Israel and Egypt into compromise. The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland similarly emerged from a mutual recognition that absolute victory was unattainable.
Trump’s strategy, however, leans more heavily toward empowering the stronger side while sidelining the weaker party. His Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, notably excluded Palestinians from negotiations. This exclusion likely contributed to the perception that the Palestinian cause was being abandoned—one of Hamas’s stated justifications for its October 7, 2023, attack.
The Future of Trump’s Foreign Policy
As Trump continues to shape his approach, the effectiveness of his strategy remains uncertain. While his backers claim he thinks outside traditional diplomatic frameworks, historical precedent suggests that sustainable peace often requires a more even-handed approach. If the past is any indication, the belief that raw power dictates all outcomes may prove to be a miscalculation.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.