Ukraine peace; A victim of Trump’s thirst for fame

According to RCO News Agency, while the war in Ukraine is still going on, Politico magazine points out in a report that there is no regular and clear process for making decisions about the war in Ukraine in the administration of US President Donald Trump. A few limited people, each acting separately and even presenting contradictory positions. Efforts to negotiate with Russia have changed many times and the plans are inconsistent and confusing; The main goal is to fulfill Trump’s desire to be seen as a “peacemaker”, not the actual end of the war.

In this report, which is written by “Ivo Daalder”, the former US ambassador to NATO and a senior researcher at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and the host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder”, it is pointed out that without an official policy process, Trump cannot end the war in Ukraine.

The former US ambassador to NATO writes: “As long as a limited number of actors in the Trump administration act separately, any peace plan for Ukraine will be accompanied by chaos and confusion.” If you’ve been confused by the latest U.S. efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, you’re not alone. The past few months have been hectic; “With meetings in Moscow, Anchorage, New York, Washington, Miami, Kiev and Geneva, and countless informal contacts between a large list of actors.”

He believes that one of the reasons for this situation is the almost impossible mission that Donald Trump has set for his team: “To end a war between two countries that are both determined to continue fighting for completely opposite goals; Russia to bring Ukraine to its knees, and Ukraine to maintain its sovereignty and independence.

According to the author, another reason for the confusion of the last few months – from meetings that were announced and then canceled, deadlines that were announced and then abandoned, and plans that were announced and then modified, with a variable combination of negotiators – is the lack of an official policy process in the Trump administration; A process for formulating policy, providing guidance, engaging with foreign governments and setting a clear path.

“This lack of formal process is a unique feature — or flaw — of this presidency,” says the former US ambassador. Of course, Trump is not the first American president to rely on a small circle of advisers on important foreign policy issues. George Bush Sr. ran the Gulf War with seven senior officials, and former President Joe Biden made many national security decisions in a daily briefing attended by only a few top advisers.

The difference, he continued, is that senior advisers in other governments relied on an interagency process and specialized teams to discuss, formulate policy options, and monitor implementation. In contrast, Trump runs the government the way he ran his family business — from behind a desk in the Oval Office, meeting every person, calling every person, and making spur-of-the-moment decisions. His advisors are also almost completely independent.

In the case of Ukraine and Russia, there are practically only a few people in Trump’s close circle: Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Special Peace Representative Steve Witkoff, and since October, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. In this cycle, the Secretary of War, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the heads of the CIA and National Intelligence are basically absent.

Of those, only Rubio has large teams at the State Department and the National Security Council, but there is no indication that he will use them as his predecessors did. Any inter-agency debate that takes place has little—if any—influence on policy formation at the highest level. According to diplomats and foreign officials, even the employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and War are accessible but practically do not know what is going on.

“The bigger problem is that other than Rubio, the other main players in this case have no team or process,” says Ivo Dalder.

Wittkoff, for example, attends meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials without taking notes, and has even used Putin’s personal interpreter. Kushner is also deeply involved in the negotiations but has no official position. And Defense Secretary Daniel Driskell, who jumped into talks with Ukraine last month, had just one weekend to read up on the war, its history and the negotiating process before he was sent to Kiev to present a final plan.

According to the former US official, the lack of process explains a large part of the turmoil of the past weeks.

In mid-October, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sent Rubio a memo outlining Moscow’s ideas for ending the war. Putin and Trump were supposed to review these matters in Budapest.

The memo contained the same demands as Russia’s previous ones: ceding territory from Ukraine, severe restrictions on the Ukrainian military, and a ban on Ukraine’s participation or membership in NATO. But after contacting Lavrov, Rubio realized that Moscow’s position was definitely the same and advised Trump not to go to Budapest. Trump also canceled the meeting and said he did not want to hold a “pointless meeting”.

But while Rubio and Trump were busy putting pressure on Russia — including announcing the first new sanctions since Trump’s return — Witkoff was working with people close to Russia to revive talks. In a call to Yury Ushakov, Putin’s senior adviser, he apparently said: “The president has given me full authority to reach an agreement.”

Two weeks later, Wittkoff and Kushner sat down in Miami with Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s other close envoy, to outline a 20-point plan to end the war — just as they had done for Gaza a few weeks earlier. But unlike Rubio, they mostly accepted Russia’s positions. Dmitriev later said that the proposed text was drafted to be “as close as possible to Russia’s positions.”

“When Rubio first received the 28-point plan from them, he described it as a ‘list of possible ideas,’ and apparently told the senators that ‘this is not our recommendation, nor is it our peace plan,'” says Ivo Dalder. But Trump liked the plan and told Ukraine they had to accept it by Thanksgiving or they would be left alone. Following this, Rubio changed his position and announced, “This peace proposal was written by America.”

The former US ambassador to NATO and senior researcher at Harvard University’s Belfer Center says: “Ultimately, what drives all these people is not a formal process or a real assessment of the conditions of the end of the war, but a constant effort to fulfill Trump’s wish: to be known as a world peacemaker.” As long as this situation continues, confusion and confusion will continue, and neither of these will bring the end of the war any closer.”

end of message