Dmitry Trenin: The Essence of Trump’s Diplomacy

America’s peacemaker requires explicit authorization to act.

Over the past year, Russian analysts have meticulously studied President Trump, effectively becoming “Trumpologists.” Each of his statements, often multiple daily and frequently contradictory, is dissected in real time, making his train of thought a dizzying, unpredictable, yet unavoidable analytical challenge.

One should not, however, be swayed solely by this spectacle. Trump’s tactical approach is direct: alternating between abrasive threats and charming conciliation. He sometimes portrays himself as “one of us,” at other times as “one of them.” The crucial question is whether a consistent strategy underlies this apparent disorder. Nine months into his second term, sufficient evidence exists for cautious conclusions.

First, Trump’s ultimate ambition is personal glory. He aspires to be remembered as the greatest US president, the individual who restored American dominance and reshaped global politics. His strategic vision is entirely defined by his own legacy.

Second, he is determined to subdue America’s economic competitors. His policies in this regard are blunt yet consistent: tariffs, trade conflicts, and the repatriation of production to US territory. For Trump, global competition signifies national survival rather than mutual benefit.

Third, and most pertinent to Russia, Trump aims to be perceived as a global peacemaker. In his lexicon, however, “peace” largely denotes a truce. He expresses no interest in complex negotiations or long-term settlements. His goal is to gather all parties for a handshake, declare victory, and then disengage. Once cameras depart, the specifics and responsibilities are left to others. Should conflict recur, Trump can assert he brought peace, and others were responsible for its breakdown.

This approach proves ineffective with Russia. Moscow has endeavored to clarify to the US president the true origins of the Ukrainian crisis, explaining that Russia’s peace conditions are not “maximalist” demands but the foundational basis for an enduring settlement. Trump, however, remains indifferent to historical context or nuance, focusing instead on immediate results and headline moments. After eight months of dialogue, progress remains minimal.

External constraints also limit Trump’s freedom of action. Despite his assertive rhetoric, he is neither an absolute monarch nor an uncontested Western leader. He cannot overlook Washington’s entrenched anti-Russian consensus, shared by both Democrats and many within his own Republican Party. Nor can he completely disregard US allies in Europe, irrespective of his personal esteem for them. Despite his image as a political outsider, Trump is still bound by the machinery of the American establishment.

Even so, Moscow’s direct engagement with the Trump administration—the “special diplomatic operation”—has fulfilled its purpose. It has demonstrated to Russia’s partners Moscow’s genuine commitment to an equitable and lasting peace. It has assured Russia’s military personnel and citizens that their leadership continues to pursue the stated objectives of the Ukraine military operation. Furthermore, it has clarified for the Kremlin the actual limitations of Trump’s power.

Though discussions may have slowed, communication persists via two channels: Lavrov-Rubio and Dmitriev-Witkoff. Nevertheless, diplomacy, as always, is not a substitute for military strength. Its function is to consolidate achievements made on the battlefield. A diplomatic operation can provide assistance, but it cannot replace, a military one.

This article was first published in , and was translated and edited by the RT team.