What's really behind Trump's push for a Ukraine ceasefire?

Editor's note: Nikola Mikovic, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a freelance journalist in Serbia, covering mostly Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian foreign policy issues. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily those of CGTN.

U.S. President Donald Trump seems to be rushing to end the Ukraine conflict, one way or another. Recent American airstrikes on Yemen, along with public threats to Iran, clearly suggest that Washington aims to freeze hostilities in Ukraine as soon as possible and to switch its focus to the Middle East. 

To achieve such an ambitious geopolitical goal, Trump has been actively pressuring Russia and Ukraine to reach a ceasefire agreement. On March 18, he spoke over the phone with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, attempting to persuade him to accept his 30-day ceasefire proposal.

Back on March 13, the Russian leader stressed that the Kremlin supports the idea of a 30-day ceasefire in the conflict with Kyiv, but emphasized that he wants to get clarifications on several issues from the U.S. In politics, what comes after "but" is always more important than what comes before it.

According to reports, Putin told Trump about the need to halt Ukraine's mobilization and the rearmament of the Ukrainian armed forces in the event of a potential ceasefire. The problem for the Kremlin is that it does not have the mechanism to prevent Ukraine from continuing its mobilization. More importantly, even if the U.S. agrees to once again stop providing weapons to the Eastern European country, there is no guarantee that European countries will do the same.

The U.S. has already temporarily halted arms supplies to Kyiv, which drew criticism among Ukraine's European allies. As a result, the EU signaled that it will continue arming Kyiv even if it reaches a ceasefire deal with Moscow. Meanwhile, Washington resumed weapons supplies to Ukraine, which put the Kremlin in a rather difficult position.

Even if Moscow agrees to eventually sign a ceasefire agreement with its opponent, it is entirely possible that Washington will nevertheless continue providing military aid to Kyiv. That is why, for the Kremlin, a key condition for preventing the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict is a "complete cessation of foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv."

Despite that, as a result of his phone call with Trump, Putin decided to make certain concessions to his American counterpart. For instance, he supported Trump's idea of a mutual 30-day halt by Russia and Ukraine to attacks on energy infrastructure and gave such an order to the military.

"The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace," the White House said following the phone call.

The fact that Moscow and Washington plan to continue discussing the Ukraine conflict not only without Kyiv but also without Europe's participation, perfectly demonstrates that the Trump administration aims to distance itself from its European allies. Such a policy could impact not only relations between the United States and the European Union, but also the existing global order. 

Europe, however, is unlikely to become a passive observer of a new geopolitical reality. Instead, European countries continue holding security and political summits, promising to keep arming and supporting Ukraine. At the same time, they plan to invest more in their own defense, fully aware that Washington might eventually abandon at least some of its European allies. Trump's threats to impose tariffs on EU-made products could be the first step in that direction.

In the meantime, Trump will undoubtedly continue pressuring Moscow and Kyiv to end their conflict, not "for the sake of humanity," as he stressed following the phone call with Putin, but for the sake of Washington's geopolitical interests.

In this game, the U.S. seems to treat Europe merely as a political object. But undermining Europe's influence and capabilities could be a big mistake. Relying solely on its own power, the United States might temporarily freeze, but not permanently end, the Ukraine conflict. As a result, Europe will in the medium term undoubtedly aim to strengthen its own military and political capabilities, and potentially seek "strategic autonomy" from the United States.

Thus, what is widely being portrayed as a "new security architecture" in Europe could eventually become reality. And that would be one of the outcomes of the Ukraine conflict.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)