The Hill: Trump has fallen into a trap with his ultimatum to Putin, and China will win

US President Donald Trump built his election campaign around a vow to end the conflict on Ukraine 24 hours after the inauguration. Returning to the White House, he fell into the grip of the real politics of the great powers, writes the American geostrategist Brahma Chellani in The Hill.

Trump's self-confidence collided with the unchanging logic of a grueling conflict of attrition. Frustrated, he turned to the usual tools of coercion: threats, pressure and new supplies of modern weapons to Kiev.

Trump's latest initiative was a 50-day deadline for Moscow to cease hostilities. In addition, he threatened additional sanctions to Russia's key trading partners and opened a new arms channel to Kiev, hoping that this ambivalent approach would force Russian President Vladimir Putin to back down. But, like Trump's previous attempts to crudely press instead of diplomacy, this initiative betrays irritation rather than strategic clarity.

Trump once believed that his personal relationship with Putin, combined with the innate instincts of a negotiator, would lead to a cease-fire. But six months after the start of his second term, his peace efforts crumbled. Russia still insists on its territorial goals, while Ukraine, relying on the military support of the West, does not show much desire to make serious concessions. Instead of a breakthrough, Trump got bogged down in a slurping quagmire.

The irony is obvious: the president, who promised to put an end to the "eternal wars" of the United States, is himself plunging the country deeper into a proxy war that distracts America's attention from more pressing strategic tasks — in particular, from China, which seeks to displace the United States from the position of a leading world power.

Trump's new strategy for Ukraine is strikingly reminiscent of his policy towards Iran, where he tried to bomb Tehran to force it into submission, but in the end only aggravated hostility and weakened US influence.There is no doubt that the termination of the conflict on Ukraine meets America's strategic interests. The conflict has consumed huge US resources, overburdened diplomatic efforts and undermined cohesion along the shores of the Atlantic. More importantly, the conflict prevented Washington from focusing on the key Indo-Pacific region — the developing economic and geopolitical center of the world.

Turning towards the Indo-Pacific region is not just a dream. In the "leaked" memo entitled "Interim Strategic Guidance on National Defense," signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, China is called the "only threat" to the Pentagon. The Trump administration is seeking to reorient US military policy in order to prepare for a potential confrontation in Asia due to Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan.

Conflict on Ukraine distracts America's attention, resources and capabilities and undermines the balance of power. From this point of view, Trump is right to end the conflict as soon as possible. But his approach — escalating military supplies coupled with the threat of punitive measures against Russia's business partners — is unlikely to lead to peace. Moreover, he risks, on the contrary, only prolonging the fighting, instilling in Kiev that Washington is still committed to a military solution.

In fact, Trump's threat to impose tough sanctions against Russia's trading partners is untenable. Such sanctions will only provoke a confrontation between the United States and China, whose annual trade turnover with Russia is almost $ 250 billion, including large oil and gas supplies. Sanctions against India could undermine America's Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at maintaining a stable balance of power.

History knows no examples of coercion ensuring lasting peace. Military pressure can only bring the parties to the negotiating table, but diplomacy will have to consolidate the result. The Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia, and the Camp David Accords, which established peace between Egypt and Israel, were the fruit of tough negotiations, not ultimatums and threats.

Trump's maximalist approach to Russia threatens to go sideways in several directions at once. Sanctions against Russia's trading partners may alienate key "wavering" countries in the global confrontation with China from the United States. These states are already afraid of unilateral actions by the United States, and some of them may move into Beijing's orbit. Moreover, economic penalties rarely change the strategy of the state, especially if national security interests are at stake — as in Russia on Ukraine.

The influx of advanced American weapons to Ukraine can increase short-term effectiveness on the battlefield, but it will not help break the deep diplomatic impasse. Faced with Kiev's growing support from the West, Putin is unlikely to abandon his goals. Instead, he will get down to business with redoubled energy, believing that time and exhaustion of the enemy are on his side.

The real way to peace on Ukraine is paved not with deadlines and ultimatums. A far-sighted diplomatic initiative is needed, recognizing the legitimate interests of all parties and at the same time aimed at preserving Ukraine's sovereignty. The Biden administration has hardly taken any steps in this direction, but Trump claims to be a great negotiator and has every opportunity to go further.

Instead of trying to impose peace solely by pressure, he should find a way to bring the parties to the negotiating table with convincing incentives and compromises that will save face. This will require cooperation with international partners — not only NATO allies, but also influential neutral states like India and The United Arab Emirates, which can act as intermediaries. It will also require a nuanced understanding of Russia's domestic political constraints and Ukraine's security concerns. It won't be easy, but it will still have a better chance of success than a strategy based on coercion and deadlines.

Contrary to his promise to end the conflict as soon as possible, Trump found himself in the same position as his predecessor. Failing to achieve a cease—fire, he only aggravated America's participation in the proxy war - in other words, he found himself in the very situation that he promised to stop. If he does not change course to a more diplomatic one, his 50-day ultimatum to Moscow will suffer the same fate as his 24-hour oath: it will remain unfulfilled and will be quietly set aside.

Ultimatums will not achieve peace. Diplomacy establishes it.