Loading Text-to-Speech...

The Gaza deal is now a fact, despite its vague points and uncertainty regarding the next day's procedures in the coastal Palestinian enclave.

The agreement in question, which was announced (coincidentally?) by Trump just 24 hours before this year's Nobel Peace Prize was announced, is of course basically credited to the American president, who was supposed to bring peace to another front before bringing peace to Gaza.

Nine months after Donald Trump returned to the White House , Gaza now appears to be turning a page – where exactly remains to be seen.

But what about the Ukrainian , which Trump was supposed to resolve within a few hours, taking advantage of the pressure he can exert on Zelensky (which was evident during the Ukrainian president's visit to the White House last February) and the personal relationship of sympathy he appears to have had with Russian President Putin ? Can the Gaza deal positively influence developments in Ukraine?

Speaking from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly in New York last September, D. Trump claimed that he had already, by that time, ended seven conflicts, which is however disputed.

For the record, D. Trump had then presented the following conflicts as having been ended by his own intervention: Israel – Iran, Pakistan – India, Armenia – Azerbaijan, Egypt – Ethiopia, Serbia – Kosovo, DRC – Rwanda and Thailand – Cambodia. Of these conflicts, most remain essentially open, however, that is another matter.

If the American president were to speak again today, the conflicts that were ended by his intervention would now be eight and the last of them (between Israel and Hamas over Gaza ) would indeed be more substantial – or potentially more substantial – than all the others.

Even on the issue of Gaza, however, it is worth remembering that Trump delayed significantly, since he had initially set the goal of having all Israeli hostages released before his own inauguration as president last January. Ultimately, this agreement came nine months later, and while many episodic events had occurred in the meantime, some of them unprecedented: the Israeli strike on Doha, the US-Israeli bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities, the US strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, etc. Analysts argue that all of this may have been needed for all regional players to realize that Trump is not joking. Others, however, react, arguing that Trump is now embarking on new adventures outside the borders, from which he may not be able to emerge politically unscathed. It is recalled, for example, that the American leadership announced that no American soldiers were going to be sent to Gaza, but the first two hundred Americans are now going to (or rather near) Gaza, and we will see what happens in the future.

But what stage is the other big issue of Ukraine in, almost two months after the meeting that Messrs. Trump and Putin had in Alaska ?

Regarding the USA and their own dispositions, the possible scenarios vary since the Americans could now either return to the Ukrainian with a renewed mediation mood after resolving the Gaza issue, or, conversely, remain stuck in Gaza due to the problems that are likely to arise there in relation to the implementation of the – in any case, vague in some places – peace plan.

Regardless of the realities on the ground, the question is what the US wants to do next.

Donald Trump himself first claimed weeks ago that Russia is like a paper tiger . Going a step further, he even said that Ukraine is now in a position to fight and win, taking back the lost territories. In the same sentence, however, the American also mentioned something else, which did not go unnoticed: that the Ukrainians could win, but with the support of the Europeans.

The possibility that the Americans will completely empty the Ukrainians does not seem likely given the current situation. The discussions about sending American Tomahawks to Ukraine seem to point in the opposite direction. The Americans could, however, continue to support, but from a distance and without compensation, selling weapons to the Europeans so that they can then give them to the Ukrainians, as has already been agreed.

Lindsay Newman writes characteristically, in her analysis on the website Gzero: Americans (including Trump's Republican voters) continue to support Ukraine and believe that the United States has a responsibility to help it. However, those who considered the Russian invasion to be a significant threat to US interests have decreased. Trump is asking himself the same question. How important is Ukraine to the US? How much would peace in Ukraine benefit the US, and perhaps even more so, the American president himself?

If the answers to these questions are already or become negative in the future, then Trump's USA may indeed partially distance itself from the Ukrainian issue, leaving Europe alone responsible.

On the other hand, of course, Trump wants – above all, it seems – the Nobel Peace Prize, which he did not receive this year. Therefore, the American president still needs a diplomatic success in Ukraine if he wants to have a chance of winning this prize next year.   

The Russians, however, for their part, do not seem so far willing to back down on the Ukrainian issue, despite the difficulties (sanctions, the arrhythmias in the Russian economy, the losses on the ground). On the contrary, the way in which the Middle East now seems to be changing (to the detriment of Russian interests in Syria, for example) may make Russia's immediate neighborhood even more important in Moscow's eyes.