The Contradiction Between Trump’s Policies in Ukraine and Gaza
In an article published in The New York Times on March 13, 2014, John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, explained the background of the Ukraine conflict as follows:
“…The taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion and Washington’s commitment to move Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and integrate it into the West. The Russians have intensely disliked but tolerated substantial NATO expansion, including the accession of Poland and the Baltic countries. But when NATO announced in 2008 that Georgia and Ukraine “will become members of NATO,” Russia drew a line in the sand. Georgia and Ukraine are not just states in Russia’s neighborhood; they are on its doorstep. Indeed, Russia’s forceful response in its August 2008 war with Georgia was driven in large part by Moscow’s desire to prevent Georgia from joining NATO and integrating into the West…”[i]
On February 24, 2022, Russia started its invasion of Ukraine.
On November 29, 2022, the statement issued by the NATO-Ukraine Council at the level of Foreign Ministers said that allies remain steadfast in their commitment to support Ukraine as it continues to defend its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, and will continue their support for as long as it takes. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg held a press conference following the meetings of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs. He said:
“As Ukraine has moved forward, Russia has fallen backward. It is now weaker politically, militarily, and economically. Politically, Russia is losing influence in its near abroad. Not only in Ukraine but in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia is also becoming much more dependent on China. Year by year, Moscow is mortgaging its future to Beijing. Militarily, Russia has lost a substantial part of its conventional forces. Hundreds of aircraft. Thousands of tanks. And more than 300,000 casualties…”
“We also discussed Ukraine’s path to membership. Allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of NATO… Ukraine is closer to NATO than ever before.”[ii]
Three years later, following the Alaska summit, President Trump claimed that he had agreed on a peace deal with President Putin. Two days later, meetings were held between Mr. Trump, President Zelensky, and European leaders in Washington. Ukraine’s joining NATO was taken off the table. At the center of the second round of meetings in Washington were the post-war security guarantees to be offered to Kyiv. Initially, Mr. Trump did not rule out participating in a NATO presence in Ukraine. Then, in another one of his twists and turns, he said this was not an option, leaving the problem to be addressed by European countries. Russia has repeatedly said that it would not accept the deployment of European forces to Ukraine.
As for the question of territory, one needs to remember that Russia annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts in 2023 and will not give them up.
Mr. Trump is now “arranging” a meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelensky to be followed by a trilateral one. The Russian side states that such meetings must be carefully prepared. In other words, they are not in a hurry. Moreover, last week, Foreign Minister Lavrov stated that Moscow must be included in any discussions on Ukraine’s security guarantees, reiterating an earlier suggestion that China should be among Ukraine’s security guarantors. President Zelensky has indicated that he would only meet with President Putin once allies reach an agreement on security guarantees for Ukraine. Therefore, the ongoing questions and uncertainties regarding the “peace plan’ suggest that Mr. Trump’s optimism was based on initial impressions rather than a realistic assessment of the Russian position and grasp of detail.
Even if Russian and Ukrainian leaders hold a bilateral meeting at some point, this is unlikely to be any different than the calamitous Trump-Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office.
Mr. Trump continues to blame his predecessors, in particular Mr. Biden, for the war in Ukraine. However, Mr. Trump appears to ignore the fact that the world views the change, from one administration to the next, as an example of inconsistency in Washington’s long-term foreign and security policy.
European observers often question President Putin’s reliability as the leader of Russia. Unfortunately, after the meetings in Washington, one may ask, “How much mutual trust is left between the two sides of the Atlantic?”
Sadly for the people of Ukraine who displayed remarkable courage, bravery, poise, and resolve throughout the war, Professor Mearsheimer, in a recent must-watch interview, said that Ukraine should make peace with Russia now, or risk losing more lives and more territory, even Odessa. There is no doubt that turning Ukraine into a landlocked state was among Moscow’s initial war aims.[iii]
This is what a Washington Post article said last Saturday:
“Ukrainians are waking up to the likelihood that large portions of the country will be handed over to Russia under any scenario if a peace deal is reached. The only question is how much territory they will lose, and whether Moscow will receive additional land that it does not currently control.
“Based on what has come out of discussions so far, even in the best-case scenario, Ukraine is expected to lose the part of the country that Russia occupies at the moment — Crimea, two-thirds of Donetsk, portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and practically all of Luhansk.”[iv]
President Trump explains his “quest for peace in Ukraine” by his desire to “stop the killing there”. This is a glaring contradiction with his unconditional support for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s war in Gaza, where the death toll is now above 62,000 and likely to go up further. UN-backed body responsible for monitoring food security has raised its classification to Phase 5, the highest level of its acute food insecurity scale.
Is Mr. Trump interested in “stopping the killing” in Gaza, like in Ukraine? Hardly. On the contrary, he would keep mentioning his “accomplishments” in securing peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, Cambodia and Thailand, and Egypt and Ethiopia, and hope that “peace in Ukraine” will be his crowning achievement to bring him the Nobel Peace Prize.
With new settlement projects in the West Bank and now Israel’s major offensive against Gaza, it is abundantly clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s goal is to push the Gazans to a tiny sliver of the Strip in the south, send the West Bank Palestinians there also, persuade Egypt to cede another sliver of land beyond the Rafah crossing, and then turn to the proponents of the “two-state solution” and tell them, “There it is, your State of Palestine.”
As seen in recent phone calls between Presidents Erdoğan and Putin and between Foreign Minister Fidan and Secretary Rubio, Ankara is seeking to host the Ukraine summits in Türkiye. Ankara must remember that all favors from Mr. Trump come with a price, often with a high one.
[i] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/opinion/getting-ukraine-wrong.html
[ii] https://diplomaticopinion.com/2023/12/04/the-west-neither-at-war-nor-at-peace/
[iii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTScjvMN_b8
[iv] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/08/23/ukraine-donetsk-land-peace-deal/