Trump, Ukraine, and the Limits of Presidential Peacemaking: Ignoring Decades of American Practice, His Approach Faces Long Odds

Comparing Presidential Peacemaking Efforts

The article analyzes Donald Trump's attempts to mediate the Russo-Ukrainian war and contrasts them with the approaches of Theodore Roosevelt (Russo-Japanese War), John F. Kennedy (Indonesia-Netherlands conflict), and Jimmy Carter (Camp David Accords). It argues that Trump's methods differ significantly, potentially hindering success.

Roosevelt's Success in the Russo-Japanese War

Roosevelt's successful mediation in 1905 involved impartiality and careful negotiation, leading to the Treaty of Portsmouth. His approach was characterized by understanding both sides' interests and working towards mutual concessions.

• Key elements of Roosevelt's success include impartiality, understanding both sides' interests, and mutual concessions.
• The final agreement saw Russia conceding half of Sakhalin Island, and Japan forgoing war reparations.

Kennedy's Mixed Results in the Indonesia-Netherlands Conflict

Kennedy's intervention in the 1962 dispute over West New Guinea resulted in a deal but ultimately failed to prevent future Indonesian aggression. His approach, involving pressure on the Netherlands and direct engagement with Indonesian leader Sukarno, led to a short-term solution but long-term instability.

• The success was short-lived, as Sukarno later challenged Malaysia.
• The strategy involved pressure on both sides, but a lack of long-term vision hindered lasting peace.

Carter's Triumph at Camp David

Carter's success in 1978 at Camp David stemmed from his personal involvement, honest brokerage, and ability to leverage threats and inducements. His direct engagement with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, including personal appeals, ultimately secured a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt.

• Carter's personal engagement and ability to use both threats and emotional appeals were key to success.
• The agreement involved an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.

Trump's Different Approach

Trump's approach contrasts sharply. His perceived bias toward Russia, concessions to Moscow, and public criticism of Ukraine's president are highlighted as factors reducing his credibility as a neutral mediator. Furthermore, the pursuit of a side deal concerning Ukraine's mineral resources is deemed detrimental to the peace process.

• Trump's bias toward Russia and public criticism of Ukraine undermines his neutrality.
• A side deal focusing on Ukrainian mineral resources detracts from the primary goal of peace.

Conclusion

The article concludes that Trump's approach deviates significantly from past successful presidential mediations. His lack of neutrality, pursuit of self-interest, and disregard for the plight of Ukrainians make a peaceful resolution unlikely. The author suggests that Trump's attempts to secure a Nobel Peace Prize appear unrealistic.