Experts Cast Doubt on Trump’s Pledge To End Ukraine War in 24 Hours
Analysts highlight the unrealistic nature of Trump's promise and discuss broader campaign commitment
As former US president Donald Trump campaigns for the 2024 presidential election, he has made a bold claim pledging to resolve the “horrible war with Russia and Ukraine” within 24 hours of reclaiming office. Despite not detailing his strategy, Trump’s previous interactions with Russia have been marked by contradictions, such as offering lethal aid to Ukraine in 2019, lauding Putin, and even suggesting a withdrawal from NATO.
Trump’s 2024 campaign centers on strict immigration enforcement, heightened tariffs, and extensive tax cuts. He plans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, relax environmental regulations, and boost fossil fuel production. His agenda seeks to increase executive power and impose restrictions on LGBT rights, with a swift end to the Ukraine conflict as a key foreign policy goal.
Experts, however, express skepticism regarding the feasibility of such a promise. Alan Mendoza, Co-Founder and Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society, shared with The Media Line that it is unrealistic to expect the war to be stopped in a single day.
You can’t end the war in 24 hours. I suspect Trump’s statement actually means that he will make ending the war an early priority, but it’s frankly quite unclear what he will even do in that regard.
“You can’t end the war in 24 hours. I suspect Trump’s statement actually means that he will make ending the war an early priority, but it’s frankly quite unclear what he will even do in that regard,” he said.
“There’s been a lot of speculation,” Mendoza said. “Some people say he will force both sides to accept a peace deal that he’s concocted, but we don’t know what that peace deal looks like if it’s there. Other people say he’ll engage in trying to work out which of the sides is weaker or which of the sides is going to respect him more, and then he will come to a determination of what US policy should be based on that. The plain fact is that nobody actually knows what this means beyond some sort of vague pledge to try and end the war.”
Director of Publications at JCPA Lenny Ben David also expressed skepticism about Trump’s ability to leverage NATO or Russia to bring peace due to the complex dynamics involved.
“I don’t know how he would have leverage over NATO or over the Russians. Maybe he has a messianic complex, believing he can bring peace overnight, but I don’t see how he can achieve this with Russia. There are just too many variables and powers involved. He might even start working on this in the next couple of months before the election,” he said.
According to Alan Mendoza, the chances of US forces being introduced to the theater to end the war are very unlikely. “Trump’s whole remit has been to get America out of wars, not America into wars. And inserting troops into a theater of combat is surely going to be something along the lines of getting you into a war,” he added.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Mendoza emphasized the unpredictable nature of Trump’s decisions regarding the war. “Other scenarios on how Trump will influence the war could frankly be anything. It could range from trading nuclear weapons in Moscow to doing the same to Kyiv. We don’t really know what his policy is here. Every option remains viable,” he told The Media Line.
I think he’s got a base in the Republican Party that wants America out of all foreign entanglements. And we’ll assume that what he means is that he will stop providing funds and military support to Ukraine. And that will be the America-first approach: This is not an important conflict for us. Let’s get back to focusing on the US.
“I think he’s got a base in the Republican Party that wants America out of all foreign entanglements. And we’ll assume that what he means is that he will stop providing funds and military support to Ukraine. And that will be the America-first approach: This is not an important conflict for us. Let’s get back to focusing on the US,” added Mendoza.
According to Ben David, despite Trump’s promise to end the war in Ukraine, he is not an isolationist.
“There are individuals within the Republican Party who adopt an isolationist stance, believing that the US should not act as the world’s policeman and should prioritize domestic issues. Isolationists argue that the US does not need to involve itself in conflicts in Ukraine or Europe, and some extend this view toward Israel. However, I don’t think Trump is an isolationist. He appears to be cautious and strategic, tying foreign policy closely to the US economy,” he said.
“Trump wanted to say he is strong. His line is: ‘I’m the leader in the world who stops conflicts.’ It was obviously in contrast to Joe Biden. That’s no longer the case,” added Mendoza.
Alan Mendoza expressed uncertainty about Kamala Harris’s independent foreign policy views and their impact on the current political landscape. He noted that Harris’s stance on foreign policy remains unclear outside the context of the Biden administration.
“Democrats have an interesting opportunity with Kamala Harris. She’ll appeal to women voters, younger voters, and progressive voters, three areas where Biden was weak. However, she’s chained to Biden’s agenda for the next five months and can’t be an independent player. This makes it hard for her to stand out independently,” noted Ben David.
Ben David explained that Trump, although making unrealistic promises regarding the war, keeps his word on other ones.
“In terms of the economy, his promises aren’t empty, which will be crucial in the elections,” he explained.
Ben David refers to journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon.
“She argues that the Democratic Party has lost touch with the working class, who have been neglected in favor of elite interests. She believes Trump will succeed here, as he appeals to the working class. That’s why he chose J.D. Vance over someone from New York or California. Trump’s focus will likely be on jobs and the economy,” he added.
Mendoza highlighted Trump’s commitment during his nomination speech, indicating strong support for Israel’s actions should the hostages not be released by the time he takes office.
Towards Israel, that seems to be a lot simpler in the sense that we heard him make a pledge during his nomination speech saying that if the hostages aren’t back by the time he’s in, you’re going to know about it, which suggests that he will be very supportive of whatever Israel might do.
“Towards Israel, that seems to be a lot simpler in the sense that we heard him make a pledge during his nomination speech saying that if the hostages aren’t back by the time he’s in, you’re going to know about it, which suggests that he will be very supportive of whatever Israel might do,” he said.
“Let’s not forget that in his first term, he actually put down a peace plan, which has all been forgotten about, of course, and was conveniently shifted off to the side. But there was a peace plan. The Trump peace plan came out. It was pretty pro-Israel in the sense that it finally suggested the Palestinians needed to get moving on their side of the debate in order to actually bring peace to the region. It’s really the Palestinians who’ve got to move, agree a deal, and get on with it. So I would expect him to probably return to that kind of paradigm quickly,” he added.
Ben David supported this by drawing a parallel between Trump assuming office and Ronald Reagan becoming president, suggesting that Trump’s assertive stance might lead to significant geopolitical shifts, similar to Reagan’s impact during the Iran hostage crisis.
“When Reagan took office, Iran released the hostages. We’ll see if something similar happens with Israel’s hostages. I doubt they will be released in the next few weeks or months,” he said.
