But at the end of the day, is Donald Trump a peacemaker or not? Do recent developments in the major conflict zones, Ukraine and the Middle East, allow for a positive assessment of his performance? Perhaps, perhaps not. Undoubtedly, upon returning to the White House for his second presidential term, the new President of the United States of America chose to favor an approach "different" from the political dynamics of his predecessor. This does not appear to be pure chance, despite his well-known and perhaps apparent unpredictability. Donald Trump aspires to become, and be remembered, as a man of peace. The very fact that Israel intended to engage governments around the world in its candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize seemed a source of pride, a long-awaited recognition that has so far remained unattainable. With good plausibility, one might even exclaim that Vladimir Putin's Russia stands between Donald Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize. The Kremlin has once again demonstrated its unwillingness to sit at the negotiating table unless it agrees to its own terms. Yet Donald Trump himself, despite being disappointed by his Russian counterpart, appears to have been categorical in reiterating his refusal to grant Kyiv the American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Contradiction, common sense, or pragmatism? Who can say, given that by imposing sanctions on the Russian energy sector, he appears to have sought to align himself with the European Union's position, almost as if to underscore a continuity of purpose, almost as if to express a reaction, without this reaction constituting a dividing line that would effectively bring about change on the battlefield and in the dialectical dynamics between the two sides: the Russian and the American.

This probably wouldn't be too surprising. Especially considering that Donald Trump himself has repeatedly expressed openness in expressing his views on the thorny issue of preserving Ukraine's territorial integrity. By stating otherwise (and it's no secret to anyone), even during his latest meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, he seemed willing to consider giving in to Moscow's demands, which, notoriously, aspires to the annexation of Donetsk in order to end the war as quickly as possible.

In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, could Donald Trump's intervention prove decisive enough to bring an end to the war and, at the same time, achieve a just and lasting peace? Perhaps, the doubtful formula imposes itself, it could be decisive, but not in the ways and terms the so-called "Willing" would expect.

It would seem that the weak point among Ukraine's various supporters, if one wishes to call it that, lies precisely in the lack of cohesion in the decisions to be pursued, even without any potentially decisive intervention by the President of the United States of America. Whatever one might say, the President must act in a way that does not alter the fragile existing balance and risk the extremely dangerous escalation of the conflict. The Russian-Ukrainian balance is a complex one, where the checks and balances of the major players involved appear to be equal.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata