The High-Stakes Gamble of American Foreign Policy

To execute the domestic-focused agenda Donald Trump championed in 2016, Washington faces an immense challenge: temporarily halting—not ending—its geopolitical confrontations on three critical fronts (Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific) without making it appear as a humiliating retreat. The objective is clear: maintain key strategic positions so that once America reclaims economic dominance (which Trump sees as his primary mission), it can return to a position of strength, resuming an aggressive foreign policy on its own terms.

But pulling off such a maneuver requires delicate finesse. The world is not an idle chessboard waiting for the U.S. to make its next move—it is a battleground where every pause is a potential defeat, and every concession is a test of resilience.

Trump's Initial Playbook: Deals, Threats, and Pressure

The Trump team’s original vision for managing America’s adversaries was blunt, transactional, and, in their minds, elegant in its simplicity:

• Russia: Hand Moscow a piece of Ukraine as a consolation prize while keeping Kyiv firmly in the Western camp, rearmed and reinforced against any future Russian ambitions.
• China: Slam Beijing with crippling tariffs, effectively sealing off American markets, while coercing it into purchasing U.S. goods to rebalance the trade deficit.
• Iran: Dangle the threat of Syria aligning with Turkey, encourage Ankara’s expansion in the Caucasus and Central Asia, fully back Israeli anti-Iranian initiatives, and keep the specter of U.S. airstrikes hovering over Tehran like a storm cloud.

Yet, this grand strategy hit an unexpected wall—resistance. Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran quickly recognized Trump’s urgency for a rapid, headline-grabbing success. Instead of capitulating, they played for time, signaling a willingness to negotiate while giving away nothing of real value.

The Evolving Battlefield

• Iran remains under siege, its military and economic vulnerabilities making it the weakest link among U.S. adversaries. With both Turkey and Israel actively working against it, Washington still harbors hopes of breaking Tehran’s resolve.
• China stands firm, responding to U.S. tariffs with its own countermeasures while leaving the door open for a diplomatic endgame.
• Russia is now the test case for a revised negotiation strategy—one that, if successful, could be replicated with China and Iran. The approach is classic power play: lure Moscow into talks with apparent major concessions, then maneuver to outfox it at the negotiating table.

Washington’s Offer: A Deal or a Deception?

The art of negotiation, particularly in geopolitics, follows a predictable rhythm: one side makes a move, expecting a reciprocal gesture. The U.S. has put forth seemingly weighty concessions:

• Recognition of Russia’s newly annexed territories.
• Replacing Zelensky with a leader more palatable to Moscow.

However, beneath the surface, Washington’s stance remains as hardened as ever:

• No NATO membership for Ukraine—but only because it was never truly on the table in the near future. Meanwhile, the U.S. plans to further arm and strengthen Kyiv’s military. Washington is also open to deploying Western “peacekeepers,” provided that Europe is willing to commit its own troops, with the U.S. standing by as the unseen force behind them.
• No true denazification. While certain figures—Zelensky, a handful of extremists, and Soros-linked operatives—may be sacrificed as bargaining chips, the core nature of the regime remains untouched. To pacify Moscow, minor symbolic gestures might be made, such as halting persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church or easing restrictions on the Russian language.
• Compensation for America’s ‘investment’ in Ukraine—Washington is demanding $500 billion in repayment. While negotiable, the envisioned payment will likely come from Ukraine’s mineral wealth, with Trump making it clear that control over these resources is secondary to ensuring America gets its cut.

At its core, Trump’s proposal is little more than a high-stakes real estate deal: Russia is expected to buy back parts of Ukraine from the United States.

The Illusion of a Settlement

Sanctions relief and the unfreezing of Russian assets remain ambiguous, retained as bargaining chips. Washington’s so-called “concessions” are largely superficial. Even if Zelensky were to step down and elections were held, any preliminary agreements would be signed by an interim figure of questionable legitimacy, leaving ample room for Kyiv to later contest Russia’s territorial gains.

The U.S. has floated the idea of amending Ukraine’s constitution to legally permit territorial concessions. However, under the current Ukrainian legal framework, this would require:

1. Parliamentary elections (initiated by Ukraine’s Central Election Commission).
2. Presidential elections following the new parliament’s formation.
3. Drafting and debating a new constitution.
4. Holding a nationwide referendum.
5. A final parliamentary vote to implement the referendum results.

Even under ideal conditions, this process would take at least eight months—more realistically, a year or longer. And at any moment, the process could be derailed by public opposition, political infighting, or foreign intervention. Restarting full-scale war after months of ceasefire and negotiations would be an uphill battle.

Zelensky: The Wild Card

This entire scenario assumes that Zelensky walks away quietly. But history suggests otherwise. He is a man who views himself as the anointed savior of Ukraine, his ego inflated by global adulation. The fact that his administration is riddled with corruption does not diminish his belief in his own righteousness.

Zelensky has already begun eliminating potential rivals:

• He has tightened the noose around Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.
• He has imposed sanctions on former President Petro Poroshenko.
• He has purged military and security officials deemed insufficiently loyal.

The U.S. has, in the past, successfully convinced dictators like Nicaragua’s Somoza, Haiti’s “Baby Doc” Duvalier, and Chile’s Pinochet to step down. But can it persuade a former comedian turned wartime leader, whose hands are stained with too much blood to allow for a peaceful retirement?

The Power Behind the Throne

Zelensky is not just a man—he is a symbol. He is propped up by:

• His Servant of the People party, a collection of opportunists more addicted to power than he is.
• A vast network of nationalist forces, many more radicalized than those in 2014, who refuse to surrender an inch of land to Russia.
• Western backers, who continue to funnel money and weapons into Ukraine. Even if U.S. funding wavers, European leaders have pledged to sustain Ukraine, and Kyiv insists it has resources to last through the year.

The “Zelensky Problem”

Some in Russia ask, “Why not just take him out?” The answer is simple: he is protected by Cold War-era bunkers designed to withstand nuclear blasts, buried deep within Kyiv and surrounded by densely populated residential areas. A direct strike would not eliminate him—but it would create the horrifying images of civilian carnage that he so desperately needs to maintain Western outrage.

The Hard Truth: Ending Ukraine to End the War

For now, Zelensky still enjoys unwavering support from liberal European leaders and bureaucrats who are willing to escalate tensions even further. Trump, on the other hand, shows little interest in even meeting with him. But while Zelensky’s fate remains uncertain, the broader reality is clear: as long as Ukraine exists, the war continues.

The fastest and most effective solution is not just the removal of Zelensky—but the dissolution of Ukraine itself. Without Ukraine, there is no battlefield, no adversary, no war.

This is the real calculation being made in Moscow, Washington, and beyond. And history will decide who played their hand best.