Ukrainian and Russian War Negotiations: The Role of US Intervention

President Trump and President Putin meeting in Helsinki, Finland 2018. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the conflict has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and displaced millions more. Despite previously attempting several rounds of peaceful negotiations between Russia and Ukraine alone, all have failed. Now, three years into the war, negotiations to facilitate the end of the conflict seem to be bearing fruit. Much of the recent swift negotiations are being attributed to the re-election of  U.S. President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for an end to the war since he first began campaigning. Yet, the format of these negotiations has drawn international criticism for their exclusion of Ukraine, one of the two parties embroiled in the conflict. Talks between the United States and Russia began in Saudi Arabia, yet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukrainian diplomats had not received an invitation to war negotiations.

As a whole, Trump’s coziness with Russian President Vladimir Putin has worried many U.S. allies. Not only has Trump failed to denounce Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, but he has also refused to sign a formal statement attributing Russia as the cause of the war, instead stating that the focus should be on ending the war rather than its causes. This set the stage for the meeting of President Trump and President Zelensky on February 28th to discuss mineral rights in Ukraine, which quickly turned into a highly contentious, tense discussion. Among the key moments of the meeting were Trump calling President Zelensky a “dictator,” blaming him for starting the war, and criticizing him for not thanking the United States for the foreign aid that Ukraine has been given, all of which led to President Zelensky walking out of the meeting without signing any agreement.

Following this meeting, President Zelensky sent a letter to the Oval Office stating that Kyiv was ready for negotiations and peace. Since then, President Trump spoke with President Putin on March 18th, and a 30-day partial ceasefire against attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure has been reached. Yet, President Putin still has not agreed to a complete ceasefire, stating that there were still issues that needed to be “ironed out.” The direction of further negotiations remains uncertain.

In the midst of this crisis, many European nations have been expressing concerns about the Trump administration’s new foreign relations policies, especially with the knowledge that Ukrainian aid is conditional pending. French President Emmanuel Macron is one of these leaders, and in response has hosted several European-specific meetings over the past couple of weeks that excluded the United States from discussions on potential aid solutions for Ukraine. As a result, tensions have continued to increase between Europe and the U.S., with many allies continuing to look for alternative routes of aid without involvement from the U.S. This shift toward isolationist policy marks a stark shift in U.S. foreign policy and international diplomacy, with European allies learning they will need to rely less and less on the U.S. for support.

Macron’s Meeting With Trump

Brian Snyder/Reuters

Despite myriad disagreements between U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron over the years, the two politicians put their differences aside at a recent White House meeting in February–an encounter which France24 called a “bromance.”

While Trump is a far-right populist and Macron is more center-left, the two might not have much to agree on. Yet over their respective two presidential terms, Trump and Macron have mastered this form of friendly diplomacy, getting along well while also remaining firm in their beliefs and agendas. 

For instance, rather than getting upset at Macron for speaking in French at the White House– as happened previously at the Eiffel Tower– Trump cut him off with a compliment and a firm pat on the thigh, stating: “That is the most beautiful language.”

Piers Morgan, a British broadcaster and longtime friend of Trump, insists Macron is skilled at dealing with Trump. “No world leader handles Trump as well as Macron. Friendly but firm, respectful but not afraid to stand up to him when he thinks he’s wrong. And Trump respects him for it.”

During their meeting Trump and Macron agreed on a few important points, with Trump even stating that Putin would support European peacekeeping forces entering Ukraine once the war is over–a claim that the Kremlin has since denied. Anticipating pushback, Macron prefaced that these forces “would not be along the frontlines. They would not be part of any conflict. They would be there to ensure that the peace is respected.”

Although Trump’s talk with Macron went well, there was no such “bromance” between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy when the two met on February 28. Trump said one thing with Macron and another with Zelenskyy, demonstrating his lack of commitment to diplomacy and how easily he can be swayed by politicians he gets along with. After being berated by Trump and vice president JD Vance, Zelenskyy walked out of the meeting leaving the US-Ukraine minerals deal unsigned.

Was the groundwork Macron laid regarding Ukraine all in vain? Trump may have ruined his chances with Ukraine by disrespecting Zelenskyy and not taking the suffering and demands of his people seriously.

Given Trump’s unreliable diplomacy, even his relationship with Macron is not always smooth. This is clearly illustrated in Macron’s exclusion from Trump’s inauguration. Instead, fringe far-right French politician Éric Zemmour attended, and not even Marine Le Pen–  the more established right-wing politician who finished in second place in the 2022 French presidential election– was invited. 

While Trump has recognized that the conflict must end before it escalates into a Third World War, he felt that a possible solution could include Ukraine surrendering territory to Russia. However, Macron stressed the need for a strong peace agreement and underlined that a good solution would not include the capitulation of Ukraine. 

With the United States announcing on March 3 that it will suspend military aid to Ukraine, only time will tell whether Macron’s strategy with Trump worked. Those on the left are horrified at the consequences this change of policy may have. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee insisted that in “freezing military aid to Ukraine, President Trump has kicked the door wide open for Putin to escalate his violent aggression against innocent Ukraine.”

Much of Europe shares this anxiety, including Macron’s close ally François Bayrou, France’s prime minister since December who stated “If Russia stops fighting, the war stops. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine disappears.” 

While Bayrou has been clear of his disdain for Trump and his politics with Ukraine, Macron took a more restrained response to American military aid suspension: “The United States, our ally, has changed its position on this war, is less supportive of Ukraine and is casting doubt on what will happen next… I want to believe that the United States will remain by our side, but we need to be ready if that were not the case.” 

While the relationship might not be strong enough to be labeled a “bromance,” Macron has affirmed his commitment to supporting  the American president and his dedication to Franco-American relations.

However, as the situation in Ukraine unfolds–especially after the halting of American military aid–the world will watch for the fate of the Ukrainian people and the response of Europe’s leaders in light of the president’s withdrawal.

Trump’s Decision to Invite Zemmour

French far-right pundit Éric Zemmour - Stefano Rellandini, AFP

When creating the guest list for his inauguration, American president Donald Trump carefully chose which international attendees he wanted there. So when far-right politician Éric Zemmour arrived from France, instead of President Emmanuel Macron, or his counterpart Marine Le Pen—who has lost to Macron in the past two presidential elections—it may indicate a change of pace in US-Franco relations for the next few years. 

Tensions between Trump and Le Pen are not a new phenomenon. In January 2017, Le Pen waited hours to see Trump at his New York City hotel, but the meeting never took place. This caused a rift between the two politicians, decreasing Le Pen’s admiration for Trump and leading her to ban lower-ranking members of her party from commenting on the 2024 election, stating that his style is “incompatible” with her party. 

On the other hand, Éric Zemmour has gained media attention since he boasted of a “warm” 40-minute phone call with Trump back in February 2022, where the American president told him: “Don’t give in to anything, stand your ground, remain courageous, it’s tenacity and endurance that pay off.” 

Despite receiving Trump’s backing, Zemmour’s party – Reconquête, meaning “win back” – did not win a seat in either the 2022 or 2024 parliamentary elections. Being invited to Trump’s inauguration indicates that Zemmour is likely to remain on the fringes of French society, despite Trump’s politics becoming more mainstream in the United States. While there are certainly far-right sentiments in France, even those citizens are concerned with their safety and prosperity. As such, while they may agree with Trump’s politics, his disregard for European interests is worrying for those on the continent. 

This is where Marine Le Pen comes in. Le Pen might be taken more seriously by the French in the next election precisely because of her absence from Trump’s inauguration. Le Pen represents far-right tendencies while also protecting the nation rather than disregarding French concerns about Trump. 

“If she wants to claim to govern and defend the interests of France, she cannot appear as someone who’s in the immediate proximity of Donald Trump, especially since Trump has a very aggressive discourse towards Europe,” states Olivier Costa, director at the Sciences Po Center for Political Research. 

Le Pen’s distance from Trump may help her win the presidency next, and it will be interesting to see the direction that French far-right politics takes in the coming years. With Macron unable to run for a third term in 2027, Le Pen is the front runner in polling, with projections giving her about 37% of the vote, placing her far ahead in the first electoral round. If given the choice between Zemmour and Le Pen, will supporters side with a fringe American-backed politician, or a more established candidate doing more to protect French and European interests? 

Although Trump’s first presidential term was difficult for Europe, many fear his second could be worse. France and the European Union are already steeped in political and economic struggles of their own. These could be exacerbated by tensions between the United States and China, and Trump threatening to pull out of NATO would mark a decisive turn for the war in Ukraine. 

Trump’s decision to invite a fringe far-right French politician—instead of the republic’s president—demonstrates that he is not interested in maintaining traditional relations with France. Instead, he favors non-mainstream alternative elements of the country, such as parties and individuals not actually representing the French people. Trump wants to pick and choose how he handles transatlantic relations, doing it on his own terms rather than following traditional diplomatic customs. 

However, it is curious that Macron was not invited to Trump’s inauguration, as Trump was invited to the reopening ceremony of Notre-Dame de Paris in December. Unfortunately, Trump’s inauguration guest list seems to be evidence that Macron’s attempt to get in the U.S. president’s good graces was ineffective. 

Macron echoed the fears of many Europeans when he stated: “The United States of America has two priorities. The USA first, and that is legitimate, and the China issue, second. And the European issue is not a geopolitical priority for the coming years and decades.” While it remains to be seen how Trump will navigate the future of transatlantic relations, it is clear that the nation’s link with France will change during the first two years of Trump’s presidency, as well as after the upcoming French elections in 2027.

A Fractured EU Navigates a 2nd Trump Term

French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

While President Donald Trump returned to office in the United States, leaders throughout the European Union (EU) were busy mapping out their own course at the World Economic Forum. At the latest conference, held in Davos, Switzerland, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen outlined a plan for Europe’s future on the world stage. While von der Leyen avoided direct criticism of the U.S. president, her speech marked a crucial pivot in EU foreign policy: independence from the U.S. Seeking to avoid a repeat of the tariff headaches from Trump’s first term, it seems the EU president has opted for Europe to separate its political fortunes from the volatile superpower. Amongst the alliance, however, the response has lacked cohesion; factions have emerged as leaders reconcile and navigate the converging crises of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Some European leaders, such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have stuck close to the American business mogul. Meloni, who attended Trump’s inauguration, has been a stalwart ally of the GOP strongman, leading some to call her Europe’s “Trump whisperer.” The Italian PM’s close ties with Trump, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk, suggest her administration may maintain warm relations with the U.S., and move in lockstep with its transatlantic partner for the next 4 years. Similarly, several members of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party also made an appearance at Trump’s inauguration. While the conservative Christian Democrats party, led by Friedrich Merz, are best positioned to win Germany’s upcoming elections, the AfD may still influence a strengthening of German-American relations and an increased closeness to the Trump administration.

Conversely, French President Emmanuel Macron, who has long been the EU’s top proponent of strategic autonomy, has responded to Trump’s inauguration by calling for an increase in defense expenditures among EU countries. While Macron’s pleas for European strategic autonomy fell on deaf ears during the Biden administration, Trump’s return–and the continued Russia-Ukraine war–have reignited talks of the EU forging its own path, independent of the U.S. Indeed, Macron’s ambition has been reinvigorated, as he’s urged his fellow European leaders to face the realities of the Trump administration and end the EU’s reliance on the U.S. for defense. The alliance may be positioned to achieve this feat, as EU defense spending hit record highs in 2023 and 2024, and is expected to balloon this year, with 22 of the 27 EU states increasing their defense spending.

Support for stronger European defense has been echoed by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who has condemned the U.S.’ inability to pass legislation that would provide more aid to Ukraine. Poland, whose estimated defense expenditures as a share of GDP (%) in 2024 were the highest among the NATO alliance (at 4.12%), has given dozens of packages in military aid to Ukraine and served as one of Kyiv’s most steadfast allies in their fight for sovereignty.

Tusk’s concerns are undoubtedly geographically motivated, as Poland’s proximity to Russia makes conflict a perennial concern. This geopolitical anxiety has also motivated the Nordic-Baltic states (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden) to increase their military spending in recent years. Beyond that, in November, Tusk and other leaders of Nordic-Baltic countries held a security summit in Sweden, issuing a joint statement on the need to take greater responsibility for their own defense. This recognition of the necessity of European strategic autonomy was music to the ears of Macron, who attended the conference virtually. While the U.S. has historically been the champion of the liberal international order and Western security, these moves from Europe suggest a willingness to take the mantle in the event that Trump abdicates the throne.

Meanwhile, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has charted a different course: a pro-Russia one. Since his return to office in 2023, Fico has met with Putin, ended Slovakian military aid to Ukraine, and pushed back against EU sanctions on Russia. While the Slovakian PM has defended his move, citing the necessity of developing strong relations with both sides, the Slovakian people haven’t bought it. Tens of thousands of protestors throughout the country have called for Fico’s resignation in recent months in opposition to his foreign policy pivot.

Similarly, in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán threatened to condition his support for Ukraine on the maintenance of a pipeline to provide Budapest with energy. Orbán has defended this stipulation by arguing that Hungary, who imports 80% of their oil from Russia, has lost €19 billion from EU sanctions on Russia. While the Hungarian PM backed down and voted to continue sanctions, his threats should not be dismissed, as they’re emblematic of a broader cohesion problem that the alliance is facing. While the unanimity requirement for EU decisions didn’t prevent action this time, if Orbán’s hesitation grows, or Fico drags his feet too, it could damage the ability of the bloc to show resolve against Russia–and illiberal values–and support for Ukraine–and democratic values.

As the EU navigates a period rife with uncertainty, it remains to be seen which factions will shape the alliance’s foreign policy going forward. Only time will tell whether Macron’s plans for the alliance manifest in the coming years or are destined to remain a pipe dream forever.

Retribution Returns to Washington

Enrique Tarrio and other Proud Boys gather in Washington D.C. in December 2020. Tarrio, whose sentence was commuted by Trump, had been sentenced to 22 years in prison on seditious conspiracy charges related to the January 6th Capitol attack. Victor J. Blue for the New York Times

During the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Donald Trump made a promise to his supporters: “I am your justice…I am your retribution.” At that time, Trump and his political movement were in exile, having made a disgraceful exit after an election loss that many of them believed had been caused by a nebulous “deep state” embedded inside the federal government. Now, Trump and his movement have returned to the halls of power, bringing justice for their friends and retribution for their enemies in equal measure. 

Soon after the inauguration, before cheering crowds at the Capital One arena, Trump signed his first wave of executive orders, presidential pardons, and commutations. The initial pardons and commutations went to over 1500 participants in the January 6th Capitol riot, including rioters convicted of violent felonies and militia leaders convicted of seditious conspiracy. Four days later, Trump pardoned 23 anti-abortion activists who had blocked the entrance of an abortion clinic and accosted patients and staff. The message was clear: in Trump’s America, the legal system, once the bane of his most radical supporters, will no longer restrict their activities. Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, fresh out of prison, echoed the sentiment: “Now it’s our turn.”

Trump has also sought to render the federal government more pliable to his wishes. During his first term, a group of officials colloquially known as the “adults in the room” often tried to restrain what they saw as Trump’s worst impulses. Trump’s first executive actions seek to exact revenge against these and other former officials, and to prevent the rise of any successor movement by installing loyal functionaries throughout the federal bureaucracy. Trump has reinstated Schedule F, a classification developed at the end of his first term that makes it easier to fire certain kinds of federal employees and replace them with political appointees. Additionally, Trump has begun directly removing officials who he believes may exhibit an ideological bias against him or otherwise hinder his agenda, including Coast Guard commandant Admiral Linda Fagan, 17 inspectors general, and several high-level Justice Department officials. Trump’s efforts thus far have seemingly found success; as of yet, there is no talk of resistance from within the federal ranks. 

Trump’s animus is not limited to individuals currently serving in the government. Trump removed federal security protection from at least four former officials who served in his previous administration: former CDC director Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and former Iran envoy Brian Hook. This comes despite evidence that Bolton, Pompeo, and Hook have been targeted for assassination by Iran. Additionally, Trump has stripped security clearances from dozens of former intelligence officials, including three ex-CIA directors, who signed an open letter warning that the Hunter Biden laptop story might be Russian disinformation. 

Less than a week into his presidency, Trump has already made an indelible mark. Enemies beware as a new elite, armed with the full power of the American state, pursues justice and retribution with vindictive urgency.

Trump’s Day One Executive Orders on Immigration

Trump signs a series of executive orders. Avery Lotz, Axios

Within hours of taking office, President Donald Trump has signed 26 executive orders into existence, the largest number to be signed on a president’s Inauguration Day ever. Not only have these orders rescinded 78 previously implemented orders by the Biden administration, but they also have far-ranging effects, impacting an assortment of areas including foreign policy, social programs, immigration, the environment and energy, and criminal justice. 

Of these executive orders, eight are focused on immigration rights, refugee laws, and the situation along the US-Mexico border. Chief among these was his move to declare the crisis at the border a national emergency, allowing Trump to swiftly and easily redirect funds and deploy military troops into the area. To give this additional support, he also passed a second order “clarifying the military’s role” in national security, referring specifically and repeatedly to the borders and the military’s role in guarding against an invasion. In doing so, he grants the Secretary of Defense the power to mobilize thousands of troops to send to the border. 

In addition to executive orders focused on the southern border, Trump also passed an order regarding “protection from foreign terrorists,” introducing new criteria for screening across agencies for those trying to enter the country. Some of these new criteria include being screened to the “maximum degree,” requiring immense background information and identification requirements that many immigrants can’t provide.

Of the other five orders, three speak specifically on guarding against invasions, with one stating that Homeland Security Task Forces will be deployed in all states, and another saying entry immigration into the US has been halted until further notice. The third suspends the United States Refugee Admission Program (USRAP), eliminating the pathway for refugees to enter the country. Finally, a fourth ends birthright citizenship, meaning that even though someone might be born in the United States, that does not automatically make them a US citizen.

Along with all these executive orders, Trump also promised numerous times throughout his campaign to begin a “mass deportation” campaign targeting 1.4 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.. Local police and departments across the country have pushed back on these orders, saying they will not engage in harsh deportation raids. Yet when comparing the number of ICE arrests made over the past couple of months (283 in September 2024 versus 500 within Trump’s first three days in office), it appears that Trump’s plan is already in full swing. 

Worries remain high across the country surrounding these immigration orders, especially within families with children in school after Trump overturned the 2011 policy banning immigration arrests at schools. In cities such as Chicago, previously busy areas have significantly dropped in foot traffic, and general sentiment throughout the streets has shifted remarkably. Despite Trump’s short time in office, the effects of his actions have reverberated throughout the country, and his administration has made one thing clear: this is only the beginning.

The Tech Oligarchy: Cut a Check and Watch Trumpian Policy Bend to You

Photo taken by Julia Demaree Nikhinson | Credit: AP News

Following former President Biden’s warning of the rise of the tech billionaire oligarchy in his farewell speech, the second inauguration of President Trump confirmed the reality that the wealthy tech elite hold immense power over US politics. While the ultra-wealthy have long held significant influence in the political sphere, the blatant display of President Trump’s priorities was rather jarring. 

Traditionally, the seats closest to the president are held for guests of honor or family of the president. This year, the prestigious spots were taken by an impressive lineup of CEOs, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and of course, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. 

Trump’s administration is clearly operating under a “pay to win” ideology. Meta, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and Amazon all donated $1 million each to the inauguration fund. Elon Musk spent $277 million backing the campaigns of Trump and other Republicans. As the world’s wealthiest man, and the newly announced head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk’s investment into the Trump administration lacks any subtlety. 

In the flurry of executive orders signed by Trump and other actions taken in his first few days back in office, a notable and unsurprising pattern has emerged across the various policy decisions: profit for corporations over the public interest. 

With a whole slew of actions taken since his inauguration as evidence of his willingness to cater to corporations, it’s clear that the entanglement of Trump and the tech industry is one of the most prominent relationships setting the tone for the next four years. The ordeal regarding the TikTok ban, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and later paused by Trump’s executive order, seems to be a political theatre-esque ploy to gain support from younger generations by painting Trump as the savior of TikTok. When users were kicked off during the app’s blackout, they were met with a message of hope in President Trump: “A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office.” After TikTok was put back online for US servers, users were then greeted with another Trump-praising pop-up message, “As a result of President Trump's efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.”

Post-blackout, some users suspect that TikTok’s algorithm has undergone changes in favor of pro-Trump content. While data privacy is problematic and serves as a valid source of scrutiny against TikTok, a digital platform independent of and decentralized from the US government presents the ability to share unsuppressed criticism of US politics and the dissemination of a vast variety of political perspectives outside the mainstream media. Without space to explore an assortment of viewpoints and interact with diverse creators, unregulated or intentionally structured algorithms can promote biased content, push political narratives and agendas, and garner massive support from unparalleled exposure. 

It seems TikTok has now conformed to the practice of flattering Trump in pursuit of its own self-interest, mirroring the rest of the social media and tech industry. With the fall of fact-checking and content moderation on Meta platforms, Twitter’s backslide into chaos under Musk, coupled with TikTok’s newfound affinity for President Trump, he has arguably monopolized influence over social media. While  there are alternative platforms emerging, such as Bluesky, Twitter’s biggest counterpart and competitor, they lack the seniority and social establishment that Meta platforms hold from years of user engagement. Exemplifying the networking effect, the value of Twitter currently still outweighs that of Bluesky, as the majority of users have yet to migrate from Twitter to competitors. However, Bluesky did recently hit 27 million users, and Twitter is indeed experiencing a mass exodus— so perhaps the tide will turn as word of the Twitter alternative spreads. 

The rich have pulled strings behind politics for decades, but the nature and unique power held by social media giants is cause for major concern. Controlling the narrative on political topics and suppressing opposing viewpoints can manipulate users to shift their opinions or prohibit them from discovering new ones. The power of the algorithm is the supreme influence over what content people are exposed to; by pushing individually specified content, the potential for creating echo chambers is quite high. 

In response to the immense power Big Tech holds over US political processes, tech reform advocacy organizations have called for concrete policy solutions, in particular updating “the law that created the internet”: Section 230. Enacted by Congress in 1996, it protects social media and tech companies from being held liable for user posts on their platforms, while simultaneously giving them free reign over their content moderation. Initially intended to protect platforms and websites from legal risk by allowing them to host user forums and discussions without fear of liability, Section 230 gives far too much unregulated power to platforms acting out of political interest and profit. A high standard of regulation, fact-checking, and transparency is necessary to mitigate rampant political corruption. The rise of Big Tech’s influence in US politics cannot be ignored, and must be addressed as soon as possible.