During his election campaign, the US President Trump reiterated on multiple occasions that “he would be able to end the war between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours upon taking office”. Pitching himself as a dealmaker, Trump suggested to end the conflict in Gaza as well. However, the India-Pakistan tensions starting from April 2025 were not part of Trump`s election rhetoric. Such fresh conflict allowed him to re-propose himself as a mediator at a time when the war between Russia and Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza continue.
Once it was clearly established that ending these conflicts, particularly the one between Russia and Ukraine, is not as easy as he thought, Trump in another interview stated, “Well, I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration, because to make a point”. Despite the ground-level mediation conducted by the Trump administration, inclusive of threats to one and assurances to the other, they have largely remained ineffective. Not only does this create an impression of the futility of Trump`s feared unpredictability, but it also marks the age of US Rhetorical deterrence and transactionalism in policy making.
Rhetorical deterrence is political in nature and transactionalism is trade of not only financial exchanges but also of hopes and endorsements. It seeks to endorse intimidation but only through verbal and symbolic actions. By threatening other countries of the consequences if the conflict does not end in time, Trump has generated diplomatic tensions and distrust with allies. By assuring the parties to the conflict of valuable returns, Trump has sought to generate a transactional approach that may aid in alleviating such diplomatic tensions and distrust. In this manner, transactionalism and rhetorical deterrence are correlated to each other.
Therefore, by taking the example of cases like Gaza, Ukraine and India, the article seeks to understand Trump`s transactionalism and rhetorical deterrence via contextualization. The article will additionally elaborate on the way in which Trump`s policy outcomes have led to complete obliteration in Gaza, total submission in Ukraine and partial reconciliation in India vis-à-vis their adversaries.
Contextualization and Outcome
Gaza and Complete Obliteration
Hamas attacked and killed approximately 1200 Israelis in Shabbat and took a few of them hostage in what they termed as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Oct.7, 2023. Thereafter, a conflict began in which the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) eliminated a series of top leaders of Hamas including Yahya Sinwar and Ismael Hanniyeh. The conflict quickly escalated beyond Gaza leading to both strikes and counter-strikes by IDF on Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and vice versa. Not only did it impact the airspace and shipping routes in the region but also diminished Iran`s sphere of influence via its proxies.
Trump`s re-election anticipated that he may side with Israel vis-à-vis Hamas. True as it was, President Trump via regional mediators like Egypt and Qatar, promulgated a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in January 2025. Divided into 3 phases, the ceasefire didn’t last beyond the 1st phase due to factors like the failure of the hostage deal and the withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza. Adhering to his rhetorical deterrence and transactionalism, Trump cited to reporters in February 2025 that stability could be brought to Gaza and the Middle East if Palestinians are relocated to Qatar and Egypt and Gaza is turned into a big real estate site. In return, Trump assured these countries of financial aid and military assistance.
However, the Arab League rejected Trump`s proposal on Feb. 1, 2025. Unable to install an everlasting ceasefire in the region, the conflict has intensified. Washington`s campaign against Houthis have costed them $1 billion since March 2025. Hence, Trump announced a ceasefire with Houthis on May 6, 2025, in which the US would halt the strikes on Yemen in return for the US ships being safeguarded. In a bid to negotiate with the US, Hamas had also released the last American Israeli captive held by them.
According to the Gaza Health Ministry, approximately 52,000 Palestinians have been killed, with 119,721 injured as of May 13, 2025. The Israeli cabinet has approved plans to expand the military offensive against Hamas to the south of Gaza, meaning a complete obliteration of Palestinians. In the next few days, Israel predicts half of the 2.3 million Palestinians to leave Gaza. Fears have emerged of a long-term occupation of Gaza by the IDF, creating further security challenges for the region. Prolonged military occupation could lead to a rise of more militant groups against Israel. It may also pause any efforts by the US to mediate between Israel and the Arab League. Hamas has already dismissed all plans of future ceasefires. Therefore, other than the negotiations underway between Iran and the US, Trump`s policy has received limited outcomes in the Israel-Hamas conflict and there is no coherent policy as of yet.
Ukraine and Total Submission
When the Russia-Ukraine conflict began on Feb. 24, 2022, many anticipated that it would not last for long. That Ukraine would eventually surrender to Russian designs. Yet the conflict continues in 2025 with Russia occupying 20% of Ukrainian territories. Since 2014, Moscow has been worried that Ukraine may eventually acquiesce to NATO membership, bringing its sphere of influence under a security threat. President Putin justified his operation through a goal of demilitarization and denazifying Ukraine. Similarly, President Zelensky views the conflict as an infringement of Ukrainian sovereignty.
European Union (EU) has explicitly supported Ukraine with financial aid of over $158 billion since 2022 and an additional $57 billion until 2027, along with military assistance, and has imposed sanctions on Russia. But the EU missed a unified voice. Under former President Biden, since 2022 until November 2024, Congress has passed 5 bills aiding Ukraine with $175 billion in financial assistance. Nonetheless, all efforts towards a ceasefire failed.
Many feared that President Trump, upon his re-election, may seek a rapprochement with Russia and might stop all financial aid to Ukraine. To an extent, it was true. However, much of the rapprochement efforts initiated by Trump were to instate a ceasefire in this conflict. In this regard, Trump alienated many of the US’s European allies by cordiality with Putin and a tariff war. What most did not predict was that Trump might utilize a mineral deal with Ukraine to seek reparations for the financial aid that the US provided since 2022 to Kyiv. Trump`s threatening posture was more vocal towards Ukraine than Russia. Even though any efforts towards a ceasefire have come to a halt, a potential US-Ukraine mineral deal is in the process. Considered as a ‘potent mix of minerals and geopolitics’, Trump is at least now able to set the US on the course of both procuring and securing rare earth minerals at a time when China has prohibited the export of many of them.
Kremlin has rejected the unconditional 30-day ceasefire proposal put forth by Kyiv in May 2025, with attacks continuing to take place. For a peace deal to move forward, Putin has effectively asked that Ukraine should be kept away from NATO membership, presidential elections in Ukraine and that the territorial status-quo should be maintained. To this extent, Trump has also stated the willingness to accept Russian demands for a ceasefire. However, the possibility of a ceasefire looks bleak with the conflict turning into either a stalemate or Ukraine losing further territory.
Putin awaits the last 2 years of Trump`s last tenure i.e. by 2027 as every US President since history is unable to put forth a policy that is untraversable except for Bush Jr. Ukraine will then be coerced into total submission to Russian designs with a potential to install a pro-Moscow regime in Kyiv. This is something Trump may permit if his interests are protected. Trump may have rhetorically deterred Putin by threatening to put more sanctions on Russian oil and gas but transactionalism remains at the centre of Trump`s policy towards Ukraine.
India and Partial Reconciliation
The Pahalgam terror attack took place on April 22, 2025. Led by The Resistance Front (TRF) an offshoot of Lashkar e-Taiba (LeT), the attack killed 26 civilians. By asking about their religion before the massacre took place, TRF sought to disrupt the communal harmony of India and disrupt the tourist economy of Kashmir. New Delhi accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists. On May 7, India successfully struck key terrorist camps both in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Punjab. In retaliation, Pakistan sent multiple drones and attempted to conduct missile strikes as far as Sirsa in Haryana, Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir. The strikes were futile even though Pakistan had received support from Turkiye, China and Azerbaijan. Both countries closed their airspace to each other with multiple international airlines rerouting their flights. The international community sought de-escalation and a thaw in the conflict with only Israel and France siding with India without reference to Pakistan in their diplomatic statements.
After 3 days of intense battle, both India and Pakistan announced a ceasefire on May 10. Both announced victory with damages continued being assessed. A few minutes past 17:00 hrs IST, Trump claimed on X that the US was behind this ceasefire and that, given a chance, he could increase India-Pakistan`s trade relationship with the US. This is a typical mark of rhetorical deterrence wherein trade was used as transactionalism and the claim of a ceasefire as deterrence. Additionally, Trump claimed that given an opportunity, he can resolve the Kashmir issue in the manner he appealed about resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict during his election campaign. Whereas Pakistan thanked President Trump, India rebutted these claims.
In Saudi Arabia on May 14, Trump again reiterated that India and Pakistan should sit together at a dinner table. The Indian leadership is against the internationalization of the Kashmir issue and third-party mediation, and it dreads that such statements by Trump can escalate the crisis. By claiming a US role behind the ceasefire, what Trump has done is shielded Pakistan from India`s war on terrorism. Precepting situations via the lens of trade, Trump has previously reprimanded India for its tariffs on the US goods and services. Surprising as it is, Trump may further take leverage against India by playing on its threat perceptions regarding Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Nonetheless, Pakistan remains the beneficiary of Trump`s way of mediation and India remains partially reconciled, wherein it may not explicitly criticize the US for its handling of Indian sensitivities and yet implicitly endure dissatisfaction.
Conclusion
Other than the India-Pakistan tensions, the remaining two conflicts of Israel-Gaza and Russia-Ukraine will continue to flare up. Trump recently stated that he is willing to fly to Turkiye for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine in the Istanbul Talks. President Putin has rejected any hopes of a ceasefire. Moreover, Trump`s visit to the Gulf this month was not able to achieve the desired results that could lead to a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Uncertain as it is, except for symbolism, gestures and strengthening of trade ties between the US and other countries, Trump`s foreign policy is hollow with no clear direction.
[Photo by the White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect TGP’s editorial stance.
Prashant Rastogi is a PhD Candidate at the Jindal School of International Affairs (JSIA), O.P. Jindal Global University and a Senior Analyst with Control Risks.
