Trump Administration's "Peace Through Business" Ukraine Strategy Alienates Allies

Deep Dive

The Trump administration is pursuing a controversial "peace through business" strategy to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, prioritizing commercial deals and American corporate interests as the primary mechanism for achieving stability with Russia. This approach, championed by business figures rather than traditional diplomats, seeks to integrate Russia's economy back into the global market by lowering sanctions as part of a peace settlement. The core implication is a potential realignment of U.S. foreign policy, shifting focus from traditional alliances and geopolitical containment towards transactional economic partnerships, which risks alienating European allies and fundamentally altering the post-Cold War international order.

This business-centric diplomacy is driven by figures like Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, who see shared economic interests as a path to political trust and conflict resolution. Dmitriev, head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund and under U.S. sanctions, has pitched substantial opportunities in Russia's energy and mineral sectors, particularly rare earths, to American companies. This pitch has resonated with the Trump administration, which views these sectors as crucial for U.S. economic growth. The strategy suggests that by fostering mutually beneficial business deals, particularly involving American firms in Russia's vast energy resources, a vested interest in peace will be created, making war economically unviable. This transactional approach aims to secure peace by ensuring "people making money together, rather than making war."

The second-order implications of this strategy are significant and far-reaching. Firstly, it creates a direct tension with U.S. European allies, who largely view this approach as prioritizing business over Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. A leaked 28-point peace plan, reportedly drafted by Witkoff and Dmitriev, reflected Russian talking points, including territorial concessions from Ukraine and limitations on its military, leading to strong protests from European leaders who felt excluded from the process. This has generated a major strain on U.S.-Europe relations, with allies questioning the core tenets of their alliance with the United States. The U.S. risks becoming isolated from its traditional partners if it pursues this path independently.

Secondly, the strategy elevates business leaders and their interests to a central role in foreign policy, bypassing established diplomatic channels and potentially creating a perception that peace deals are brokered for private gain. The involvement of individuals such as Gentry Beach, a Trump associate exploring a stake in a Russian arctic gas project contingent on sanctions relief, and reports of secret meetings between ExxonMobil and Russia's state oil company, Rosneft, highlight this dynamic. This raises questions about whether the administration is fostering peace for geopolitical stability or for the enrichment of a select group of American businesses and individuals connected to the administration. The administration's stance that "we'll make the peace, you make the money" underscores this transactional philosophy.

Finally, there is a fundamental question about whether this business-first approach can truly constrain Russian aggression, given historical precedent. Decades of European attempts to foster peace through business with Russia, particularly in energy, did not prevent Russian military actions in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine. The administration's bet appears to be that Russia, and specifically Vladimir Putin, would prioritize a relationship with America, potentially seeing this as a generational opportunity to divide the Western alliance. However, the underlying risk is that Russia may be using this "business as peace" dialogue as a means to distract the U.S. and pacify the Trump administration while continuing its military objectives in Ukraine, a conflict Putin views as integral to his historical legacy. The ultimate success or failure of this strategy hinges on whether economic interdependence can truly prevent conflict or merely serve as a cover for continued geopolitical maneuvering.