Ukraine isn't Israel. And that's exactly the problem

Russia Today

8 hours ago

US President Donald Trump secured his image as a 'peacemaker' by swiftly de-escalating tensions in the Israel-Iran conflict. However, the methods he employed have little to do with the system of international law that the West swears by when condemning Russia's own military operation.
So, why has the situation in the Middle East become calmer while the Ukraine crisis rages on? Perhaps the answer lies in a comment Trump made during a NATO summit, when he said that 'something needs to be done' about Ukraine because the situation is 'completely out of control'. Out of US control, to be precise.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proved to be a more predictable partner for Trump. Unlike Ukraine, Israel cannot depend on consistent support from Europe; for the past several years, Europe has assessed the actions of the Israeli military with increasing restraint and sometimes outright criticism. Tel Aviv didn't have another external 'guardian', and this significantly strengthened Washington's position. The loss of US support would have jeopardized Israel's entire security architecture, and a conflict with the White House was a risk Netanyahu couldn't afford to take.
The asymmetrical goals of the parties also played an important part. Israel declared that it wanted to eradicate the Iranian regime – an ambitious yet unrealistic goal. In contrast, Iran didn't seek to escalate the conflict; it aimed to maintain internal stability and minimize losses – a goal Tehran successfully achieved, but one that Israel may have failed at.
Nevertheless, both sides managed to save face. Netanyahu announced the destruction of key facilities of Iran's nuclear program. Although leaks published in the American media have suggested that Tehran evacuated sensitive materials ahead of time, Iran officially acknowledged some of the damage.
Whether this statement was made as a strategic move for de-escalation or as an acknowledgment of real losses is of secondary importance. The key point is that both Israel and Iran have chosen not to escalate the conflict further.
It's likely that both sides calculated the risks involved. Israel did not anticipate such a strong retaliatory response and realized it could not destabilize the Islamic Republic on its own. Iran, for its part, was probably unprepared for a war that could draw in the US. Washington, meanwhile, had no desire to get embroiled in a full-blown Middle Eastern campaign. Trump managed to propose a way out: de-escalation without a formal agreement, but with terms that allowed each party to claim victory.
The Ukraine crisis isn't just a bilateral issue; it involves many players. Beyond the US, the European Union has become a key player. According to Member of the European Parliament Csaba Demeter, the EU contributes €134 billion of the total €267 billion in aid – about 10% of the EU's seven-year budget.
It's understandable that Brussels is reluctant to abandon its pursuit of 'Russia's strategic defeat,' even if it doesn't explicitly state this. Many of the EU's diplomatic moves, like proposals for an unconditional ceasefire, demonstrate an effort to regroup rather than seek compromise.
Unlike Trump, European elites still consider the Ukraine crisis manageable. While in the Middle East they were concerned about the destabilization of energy markets and thus favored de-escalation, in Ukraine the EU actively supports the continuation of the conflict. Just recall how German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has repeatedly stated that Ukraine must negotiate from a position of strength – a stance he uses to justify Berlin's willingness to supply Kiev with long-range weapons. French President Emmanuel Macron has echoed that line, consistently emphasizing his country's role in arming Ukraine's military.
Trump has fewer tools at his disposal compared to the situation with Israel. Sure, he can say that this isn't his war; but if Ukraine loses, it will go down in his biography as 'the second Afghanistan.' That's why the US is hesitant to leverage its influence: a thorough audit of the billions of dollars in aid provided to Ukraine hasn't been initiated yet, despite corruption allegations growing louder in Kiev. Such an audit could significantly impact Zelensky's behavior and push him toward negotiations.
The question of Zelensky's legitimacy also remains: Zelensky's presidential term expired in May 2024, a fact that Moscow has often noted. Currently, there are no signs that Trump is ready to instigate a political process, but perhaps his calls for 'doing something' also pertain to this aspect.
Unlike the conflict that has flared up in the Middle East, the Ukraine conflict is not just a temporary crisis; it poses a long-term challenge to the framework of European security. The Israeli-Iranian standoff hasn't changed the balance of power in the region, but the Ukrainian conflict has reshaped Eastern Europe in the political, military, and psychological sense. Neither side is willing to return to how things were before.
The process of constructing a new security system on the European continent that accommodates the interests of all parties involved is a fundamental task; a simple ceasefire won't solve these issues. Russia has made it clear that it will not settle for a temporary ceasefire that merely looks like peace. Long-term guarantees are needed to prevent the conflict from recurring, which means Kiev must reassess both its foreign and domestic strategies. For now, neither the EU nor Washington has demonstrated any real willingness to head in that direction.
While he understands the complexity of the situation, Trump is cautious about getting involved in negotiations. He has expressed frustration with both sides, as if saying – I tried, but no one was interested. This approach has allowed the US to shift responsibility for the crisis onto Europe, implying: now it's your war – you go find a solution.
Brussels recognizes this signal and is doing everything it can to keep Washington focused on Ukraine. But as time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that Trump does not want to take on the role of chief mediator in this conflict. He has not provided any clear signals regarding a long-term strategy. His position remains chaotic and reactive, making it even harder to predict the future actions of the United States.