Mediation or Manipulation? Trump’s Dual Foreign Policy Roles in the Russia–Ukraine and Gaza Conflicts

Adediran Babajide, President/CEO
Carlsron Initiative for Peace and Human Rights (CIPEHR)

 

 

Scope: U.S. foreign policy under Trump’s second term (2025–); Russia–Ukraine war mediation; U.S. support for Israel in Gaza; implications for international relations theory and global order.

 Abstract

This article critically examines President Donald Trump’s dual role in international relations during his second term as the 47th President of the United States. While positioning himself as a potential arbiter and peacemaker in the Russia–Ukraine war, Trump simultaneously offers vocal and material support for Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza, widely criticized as an attempt at territorial expansion and demographic erasure. By juxtaposing Trump’s approaches in these two arenas, this study interrogates the apparent contradictions in U.S. foreign policy under his leadership. Drawing from theories of international relations—including realism, liberal institutionalism, and constructivism—the article explores how Trump’s actions shape global perceptions of U.S. power, undermine multilateral institutions, and reinforce a transactional model of diplomacy. The paper concludes by assessing the long-term implications of Trump’s strategies for global peace, international law, and the credibility of U.S. leadership in a multipolar world.

 

1. Introduction

In the complex landscape of twenty-first-century geopolitics, few leaders embody contradiction as starkly as President Donald Trump. Having returned to office in 2025 as the 47th President of the United States, Trump faces global crises that test America’s leadership and credibility. Central among these crises are the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war, which has escalated since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, and the devastating Gaza war, reignited in 2023 and continuing with severe humanitarian consequences.

Trump has sought to position himself as a peacemaker in the Russia–Ukraine war, pledging to broker negotiations that could end Europe’s most devastating conflict since World War II. Yet, paradoxically, his administration offers near-unconditional support for Israel’s military operations in Gaza, including diplomatic cover in international forums and military assistance. This duality raises pressing questions: how can the U.S. President be both an arbiter of peace and a supporter of policies widely condemned as violations of international law?

This article explores Trump’s contrasting foreign policy stances through the lens of international relations theory and practice, analyzing their implications for U.S. credibility, global governance, and the pursuit of peace.

 

2. Trump as Arbiter in the Russia–Ukraine War

Trump’s approach to the Russia–Ukraine war reflects his longstanding transactional view of diplomacy. Since his 2016 campaign, Trump has advocated for “better relations” with Russia while also demanding greater European burden-sharing in security. In his second term, Trump has proposed convening direct negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv, presenting himself as the only global leader capable of mediating between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky.

From a realist perspective, Trump’s stance reflects a focus on power balances and spheres of influence. By seeking to mediate, Trump positions the U.S. as indispensable to the European security architecture while simultaneously challenging NATO’s role. His emphasis on ending the war “quickly” aligns with his transactional style—prioritizing expedient deals over long-term institution-building.

However, liberal institutionalists critique Trump’s approach as undermining the role of multilateral institutions like NATO, the European Union, and the United Nations. By sidelining these frameworks, Trump risks creating a precedent where peace negotiations hinge not on international law but on great-power bargains.

Constructivist analysis suggests that Trump’s claim to be a peacemaker serves both a domestic and international narrative. Domestically, it reinforces his image as a dealmaker capable of achieving what previous administrations could not. Internationally, it reframes U.S. involvement in the war not as a partisan alignment with Ukraine but as a strategic intervention to end bloodshed. Yet skepticism remains: can Trump’s mediation be credible given his history of ambivalent attitudes toward Russia and criticism of U.S. commitments to Ukraine?

 

3. Trump as Supporter of Israel in Gaza

In stark contrast to his calls for mediation in Ukraine, Trump has doubled down on his pro-Israel stance in the ongoing Gaza war. Since the 2023 conflict escalated, Israel’s military campaign has been accused by humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations, of disproportionate use of force, mass civilian casualties, and potential violations of the Genocide Convention. Trump’s administration, however, has offered robust diplomatic backing, vetoing Security Council resolutions critical of Israel and increasing military aid packages.

This position aligns with Trump’s first-term record, particularly the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Abraham Accords. However, the scale of destruction in Gaza raises the stakes significantly. Trump frames his support as a defense of an ally’s right to self-defense, but critics argue it amounts to complicity in collective punishment and occupation.

From a realist standpoint, Trump’s unwavering support for Israel strengthens U.S. influence in the Middle East by cementing an alliance with a key regional actor. It also sends a signal to adversaries like Iran that U.S. commitments to partners remain firm.

Yet, liberal institutionalists point to the damage such support inflicts on international law and multilateral conflict-resolution mechanisms. By undermining the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ignoring U.N. resolutions, Trump contributes to the erosion of global norms designed to restrain state violence.

Constructivist interpretations highlight the ideational dimension: Trump’s alignment with Israel resonates with his evangelical base and conservative U.S. constituencies, where support for Israel is framed as both a moral and strategic imperative. In this sense, Trump’s Gaza policy is not just geopolitics—it is also identity politics.

 

4. Contradictions in Trump’s Foreign Policy

The juxtaposition of Trump’s stances—peacemaker in Ukraine, supporter of aggression in Gaza—reveals profound contradictions. Both positions undermine U.S. credibility in different ways. In Ukraine, skepticism about Trump’s neutrality stems from his previous openness to Russian narratives and reluctance to fully support NATO. In Gaza, U.S. credibility suffers from perceptions of double standards: calling for negotiations in Europe while enabling escalation in the Middle East.

This contradiction reflects a broader tension in U.S. foreign policy: the challenge of reconciling strategic interests with normative commitments to human rights and international law. Trump embodies this tension more explicitly than his predecessors by openly privileging transactional outcomes over universal principles.

 

5. Implications for International Law and Institutions

Trump’s policies have significant implications for international law and institutions. In Ukraine, a Trump-mediated settlement that sidelines international institutions risks legitimizing Russia’s territorial gains and undermining the prohibition of wars of aggression—the “supreme international crime” articulated at Nuremberg. In Gaza, U.S. support for Israel despite allegations of war crimes further erodes the authority of the ICC and the U.N., reinforcing perceptions that international law applies selectively.

The ineffectiveness of international instruments becomes evident. Neither the U.N. nor the ICC has been able to restrain Israeli military actions or decisively shape the trajectory of the Russia–Ukraine war. Trump’s foreign policy both exploits and exacerbates these weaknesses, further diminishing the role of law in global politics.

 

6. Theoretical Insights from International Relations

Analyzing Trump’s dual roles through IR theory deepens understanding:

• Realism explains Trump’s prioritization of U.S. power and alliances, with mediation in Ukraine serving U.S. strategic influence and support for Israel bolstering regional leverage.
• Liberal institutionalism highlights the erosion of multilateral governance as Trump circumvents institutions in favor of bilateral deals and veto diplomacy.
• Constructivism shows how Trump’s actions are shaped by identity narratives: “deal-maker” in Europe, “protector of Israel” in the Middle East.

Together, these perspectives underscore how Trump’s policies embody a transactional, interest-driven model of diplomacy that sidelines normative commitments to international law.

 

7. Recommendations

To address these contradictions and mitigate risks:

1. Reinforce Multilateral Mediation: Peace in Ukraine should be pursued through a hybrid framework that combines U.S. leverage with institutional legitimacy via the U.N., OSCE, and EU.
2. Uphold International Law Consistency: U.S. credibility requires applying international legal standards equally to all conflicts, including Gaza. Selective enforcement undermines global norms.
3. Address Humanitarian Dimensions: U.S. policy must prioritize civilian protection in both Ukraine and Gaza to avoid complicity in humanitarian crises.
4. Balance Domestic Politics with Global Responsibility: While Trump’s policies cater to domestic constituencies, sustainable leadership demands alignment with international expectations.

 

8. Conclusion

President Donald Trump’s second term underscores the contradictions of U.S. foreign policy in a multipolar world. By presenting himself as a peacemaker in the Russia–Ukraine war while simultaneously supporting Israel’s destructive campaign in Gaza, Trump exposes the transactional underpinnings of his diplomacy. These dual roles raise critical questions about U.S. credibility, the future of international law, and the viability of multilateral institutions.

Ultimately, Trump’s foreign policy demonstrates the fragility of global norms when great powers prioritize short-term strategic gains over universal principles. For the international community, the challenge lies in balancing the realities of power politics with the imperative of justice and accountability. The test of Trump’s legacy will be whether his actions bring peace—or whether they accelerate the decline of an international order already under strain.

 

  References

• Allison, G. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• BBC News. (2024, January 15). Trump calls for Russia-Ukraine ceasefire, pledges to ‘end war in 24 hours’ if elected. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com
• Buncombe, A. (2023, October 20). Trump and Gaza: What his past statements tell us about his position. The Independent. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk
• Drezner, D. W. (2024). Trump, transactional diplomacy, and the crisis of liberal internationalism. International Affairs, 100(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiad305
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press.
• International Crisis Group. (2023). Peace in Ukraine? Evaluating prospects for negotiated settlement. Brussels: ICG.
• Kagan, R. (2019). The jungle grows back: America and our imperiled world. Vintage.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The tragedy of great power politics (Updated ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2022). Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault: The liberal delusions that provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs, 101(1), 45–56.
• Pape, R. A. (1996). Bombing to win: Air power and coercion in war. Cornell University Press.
• Posen, B. R. (2022). Ukraine, Russia, and the West: The perils of escalation. Survival, 64(3), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2022.2078041
• Shapiro, J. (2023). Trump, Gaza, and American foreign policy polarization. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu
• Smith, T. (2024). The double standards of U.S. mediation: Ukraine versus Gaza. Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies, 29(2), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/27527798231234567
• United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. San Francisco: United Nations.
• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.
• Zakaria, F. (2020). Ten lessons for a post-pandemic world. W. W. Norton & Company.