US Feigns Peace, Plots Russia's Demise

At the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday in the hall of St. Peter’s Basilica, Donald Trump’s brief yet symbolically charged encounter with Volodymyr Zelenskyy was described as “productive.”

It underscored the growing desperation of the US to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine — a desperation borne from a failure to recognise Russia’s dominant position in the conflict while signalling a self-serving US agenda.

After the Vatican meeting, Trump expressed frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting Putin might be deceiving him. “It makes me think maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, adding Putin “has to be dealt with differently, through ‘Banking’ or ‘Secondary Sanctions’? Too many people are dying!!!”

Trump’s outburst marked a notable departure from his earlier optimism about a near peace deal, reflecting a realisation that Putin may be exploiting the US’s eagerness for a resolution to solidify Russia’s gains.

The US has been pressing Ukraine to accept a ceasefire proposal that heavily favours Russian interests. The plan includes recognising Russia’s annexation of Crimea, conceding control over other occupied Ukrainian regions, and barring Ukraine from NATO membership. Trump has threatened to withdraw from the peace process if no agreement is reached soon, asserting that continued war would drain Western support.

Ukrainian officials have firmly rejected these terms, citing constitutional prohibitions against territorial concessions. Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa reiterated Ukraine’s stance on retaking Crimea, while Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko suggested that temporarily conceding land might be a path to peace — a view that remains highly contentious within Ukraine.

America’s push for a swift resolution is more than likely driven by ulterior motives beyond ending the conflict. Reports indicate the Trump administration proposed a deal where the US would gain ownership of half of Ukraine’s mineral and oil resources in exchange for support — a proposal that was rejected by Zelensky.

Furthermore, the US has been accused of sidelining Ukraine in negotiations, with meetings between US and Russian officials taking place without Ukrainian representation — raising questions about the US’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and the true objectives behind its diplomatic efforts.

European leaders have expressed dismay over the US approach. French President Emmanuel Macron criticised Putin for duplicity and reaffirmed backing for Ukraine, while German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius stated that “peace in Ukraine appears to be out of reach in the immediate future” due to Russia’s ongoing aggression.

The absence of top US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, from recent peace talks in London further signals diminishing American commitment and has raised concerns among NATO allies about the US’s reliability as a partner.

The United States’ enduring pursuit of global primacy, rooted in its post-Cold War unipolar dominance, continues to shape its foreign policy strategies. Despite acknowledging a shift towards a multipolar world, the US’s actions suggest an ongoing commitment to maintaining its hegemonic status, particularly in relation to Russia and China.

Historically, the US’s grand strategy has emphasised sustaining global primacy. This approach involves preventing the emergence of peer competitors and ensuring American leadership in international affairs. Even as the global landscape evolves, the US continues to adapt its strategies to uphold this dominance.

Russia and China have increasingly collaborated to counterbalance US influence. Their partnership aims to promote a multipolar world order, challenging the US’s unilateral actions and expanding their own spheres of influence. This alignment poses significant challenges to US efforts to maintain its primacy.

The US has employed various tactics to weaken adversaries, including economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, support for opposition groups, colour revolutions, and regime change operations. In Syria, US involvement aimed to counter Russian influence and destabilise the Assad regime, a key Russian ally. Similar strategies are evident in US policies towards Russia, aiming to erode its regional power and global standing.

Indeed, Russia’s caution towards the US is deeply rooted in historical experience. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, successive US administrations have expanded NATO eastward despite promises to the contrary, encroaching ever closer to Russia’s borders. For Moscow, America’s repeated betrayals and destabilising interventions — from the Balkans to the Middle East — have confirmed that Washington’s ultimate objective is to weaken and, if possible, dismember the Russian Federation.

Putin and the Russian leadership are acutely aware that any temporary “peace” offered by the US may simply be a strategic pause, designed to regroup, rearm Ukraine, and reignite the conflict under more favourable conditions. From their perspective, the US is not genuinely seeking a stable peace but rather a means to exhaust Russian resources, foment internal unrest, and ultimately bring about regime change.

Ceasefire agreements are often portrayed as steps towards peace but can serve as strategic pauses for the US to regroup and plan further actions. These intervals allow for the reallocation of resources, strengthening of alliances, and preparation for renewed efforts to counter adversaries. Russia and China are increasingly aware of this pattern and are adjusting their strategies accordingly.

Trump’s actions and recent comments suggest a lack of appreciation for Russia’s dominant position in the conflict and raise concerns about the US’s intentions in the region. As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the US will prioritise a fair and lasting peace or pursue its own strategic interests at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The Vatican meeting between Trump and Zelensky, while brief, brought these issues to the fore, highlighting the competing agendas that continue to shape the path towards peace in Ukraine.