There are two wars that President Trump understandably wants to end.
The conflict in the Middle East is actually the easier of the two to solve.
And who thought anyone would ever be able to say that?
In order for that war to end, Trump simply has to put pressure on the main backers of Hamas — Qatar and Iran — and make sure Hamas is isolated and alone.
But the war in Ukraine is a much harder prospect to solve.
This week, the president spoke with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump is understandably concerned — on a human level — with the appalling loss of life on both sides.
But the way to resolve the conflict is not clear.
Russia has occupied not just Crimea but vast swathes of the eastern part of Ukraine.
It was the dream of the Ukrainians since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022 that they would be able to liberate this land.
I saw their brief successes with my own eyes.
‘Unrealistic objective’
But the 2023 Spring Offensive failed, and the supply of weapons from the West was piecemeal and drip-fed to them.
The results of that decision can be seen in the conflict’s stalemate.
So Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was not making a statement of principle but simply one of reality this week when he told the Europeans the full-scale liberation of Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine is an “unrealistic objective.”
That is a very regrettable fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
Barring a full-scale, fully armed, Western-backed counteroffensive, it is extremely hard to see how the Ukrainians can take back all of the Russian-occupied territories.
In the case of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine it would also include taking territories that the Russians have carefully filled with Russian-supporting populations who may not even want to be returned to Ukrainian rule.
So it is likely that the war will end with an agreement that carves up Ukraine.
And here is where the peril lies not just for a peace deal, but for Ukraine’s leadership.
Any deal that includes giving up Ukrainian territory will be exceptionally damaging to Zelensky.
Even a square mile of Ukrainian territory effectively ceded to Russia will be presented as a win by Putin.
And he has stolen far more than that.
Putin has known since early on in the conflict that he had failed in his dream of gobbling up all of his neighbor’s country.
But if he gets enough of Ukraine, he will still be able to sell this as a “win” to the Russian public.
Not that he needs their support.
Dictators like him are very good at having pretend plebiscites where they get Saddam Hussein-like 102% approval ratings.
Bid to join NATO
It is Zelensky who needs a clearer win.
And that is where things get very tricky indeed.
Ukraine has long wanted to join NATO to get the security guarantees that NATO membership brings.
Of course, this was one of the bogus reasons that Putin and his apologists in the West often cite as one of the triggers for the conflict.
It is bogus not just because Putin lies — again, as dictators tend to do — but because if Putin did want to stop NATO from being near his borders, he made one of the biggest miscalculations of his life.
After all, since his invasion, countries have lined up to join NATO — most notably Sweden and Finland.
So NATO has actually grown in its membership since Putin’s alleged attempt to push it from his borders.
The problem for the Ukrainians is that it is very hard to see how NATO could welcome Ukraine into the fold.
Not just because some NATO members — notably Hungary — would likely veto any such move, but also because if Ukraine does join NATO, then all NATO members (including the United States) will have to agree, under the Article 5 “one for all, all for one” rule, that if Ukraine has to fight again, then every NATO country will be duty-bound to join in the fight.
And there are few countries that are able, never mind willing, to sign up for a future full-scale war with Russia.
And so people are wondering what security guarantees Trump or anyone else can give to Zelensky.
Again it is very hard to see.
Because as Zelensky has often said, and every Ukrainian knows, his country’s experience is that security guarantees aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Security guarantee
When Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in the 1990s, it was given a security guarantee by three countries, the US, Britain and Russia, known as the “Budapest Memorandum.”
The treaty was signed on behalf of the US by then-President Bill Clinton.
But where was that guarantee in 2022 when Ukraine was invaded?
It had drifted away — and was forgotten about as just so many words from the Clinton administration.
The piece of paper effectively meant nothing.
So why would Zelensky agree to any security guarantee given by another American president — even Donald Trump?
Especially given the likelihood that some years from now, when Trump is out of office, a Biden-like successor might ignore his security guarantee in turn.
Because if anyone thinks that Putin will not remain hungry, then they do not understand the aspirations of Putin.
An international peacekeeping force could be offered.
But again — international peacekeeping forces from Bosnia to Lebanon have rarely proved able to sustain a peace, because their main aim tends to be to simply turn a blind eye to aggression rather than confront it.
The Sri Lankans and French will be as unwilling as the US to commit troops to just stand around, and even less to fight.
This is where Trump is going to have to pull something very special out of the box, as he did with Gaza the other week.
He is right that the fighting has to stop.
But actually finding a way to halt it will be one of the great tests of his presidency.
