By Ellen Hokhikyan, WGSA Associate Expert
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that, had he been president instead of Biden, the war in Ukraine would never have started—and that he could have ended it in a day. Yet, once in power, his attempts to broker a peace deal underscored the reality that resolving a conflict involving Ukraine, Russia, and America’s European allies demands a careful balancing of competing national interests and complex geopolitical realities.
President Trump’s public jabs – citing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy as an “unelected dictator” and blaming Kyiv for the initiating the war “that is killing its citizens” – only deepened transatlantic divides and highlighted the complexities of the region’s security challenges. Notably, despite being once hailed as the EU’s staunchest NATO ally and Ukraine’s most vocal defender, the current U.S. administration refused to endorse a joint G7 statement that referenced “Russian Aggression” in relation to the invasion.
The diplomatic rift stretches far beyond the G7. On February 24th, the United States made an unexpected departure from its long-standing policy by joining Russia to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s war on Ukraine. This marked a dramatic shift, with the U.S. aligning with the aggressor on the three-year anniversary of Moscow’s full-scale invasion, breaking ranks with its traditional European allies. Later that same day, the U.S. once again sided with Russia on a U.S.-proposed draft resolution at the UN Security Council that notably omitted any mention of the Kremlin as the aggressor and failed to acknowledge Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The resolution ultimately passed, but without the backing of five European Security Council members, highlighting a growing divide between the U.S. and its European counterparts.
Amidst this mounting diplomatic discord, “peace talks” initiated by the Trump administration appear more as bargaining chips aimed at securing access to Ukraine’s natural resources. Trump contends that, given the “hundreds of billions” allocated in aid since the conflict began, the U.S. is entitled to a share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth. In its initial draft, the proposed agreement, which would have required Ukraine to cede $500 billion in resources putting Ukraine under worse conditions than Germany’s postwar reparations, while accompanying no security guarantees, was promptly rejected by President Zelenskiy. A more balanced deal, according to Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, may be on the horizon—one that would not treat aid as a debt, a notion Zelenskiy rejects.
Before Trump intensified his anti-Ukrainian rhetoric, his close ally and advisor Elon Musk had already been treading a similar path. Once a staunch supporter of Ukraine—providing free Starlink terminals after Russia’s February 2022 invasion—Musk’s stance shifted dramatically. By 2023, reports emerged that he had denied Ukraine access to Starlink for operations against Russian naval assets in Sevastopol, Crimea. Musk argued that such support would render SpaceX complicit in a major act of war, potentially provoking a nuclear response from the Kremlin, as detailed by his biographer, Walter Isaacson.
Earlier political scientist Ian Bremmer, founder of New York-based consulting firm Eurasia Group, noted on Twitter that Elon Musk had told him he’d been in touch with Putin and some other Kremlin officials about Ukraine. “He also told me what the Kremlin’s red lines were,” he wrote. This and the fact that the world’s richest man, currently the U.S. President’s closest ally and a “linchpin of U.S. space efforts Elon Musk, has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since late 2022” has been exposed by the Wall Street Journal on 25th of October, 2024. The conversations between Vladimir Putin and Elon Musk have been confirmed by several current and former U.S., European and Russian officials. The topics, according to Musk have ranged from personal, business to geopolitical tensions.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later confirmed at least one conversation between Musk and Putin regarding “space as well as current and future technologies.” In a rare public exchange, Putin, when commenting on Musk’s influence, remarked to Tucker Carlson that “there is no stopping Elon Musk he’s going to do what he thinks he needs to do”. “You need to find a common ground with him, you need to search for some ways to persuade him” Putin said.
Mr. Musk’s Relationship with China: A Strategic Play?
Conversations on geopolitics between Musk and Putin have apparently not been restricted to Ukraine as according to Journal, Putin once has asked Musk to avoid activating Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jingping, on whom Russia heavily relies on for trade and bypassing of sanctions.
Mr. Musk’s stance on China has always been notably accommodating, and it’s easy to trace this back to Tesla’s reliance on the Chinese market. Tesla’s largest Gigafactory, located in Shanghai, is the company’s biggest car manufacturing plant outside the U.S. The company depends heavily on China for production, supplies, and sales. In 2020, Musk unabashedly praised China, calling it “China rocks” during a podcast, and lauded the Chinese people as “hardworking” and “smart,” contrasting them with what he described as “entitled” and “complacent” Americans.
China remains Tesla’s second-largest market after the United States. Just two weeks ago, Musk opened a $200 million megapack factory in Shanghai, right next to the car-making Gigafactory, further consolidating his significant investment in China. This expansion comes despite the ongoing U.S.-China trade war announced by the Trump administration—a dynamic Musk, deeply entangled with Trump’s policy orbit, continues to navigate with great care. Musk’s vocal outbursts in 2020, when Tesla’s Fremont, California plant was forced to shut down during the pandemic lockdown, are well-remembered. He lashed out in Twitter, saying, “What the Fuck!…This is no freedom. Give people back their goddamn freedom!” In stark contrast, Musk was not nearly as outspoken when Chinese authorities shuttered his Shanghai Gigafactory due to an Omicron outbreak. Instead, he silently complied, underscoring the weight of Tesla’s financial stakes in China—where “billions of dollars’ worth of cheap land loans, tax breaks, and subsidies” are at play.
In tandem with Musk’s ties to China, his regular conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin raise serious questions about his political influence and global priorities. Musk’s discussions—ranging from business dealings to geopolitics—have created a considerable conflict of interest. His involvement with Russian president, coupled with his deep commercial ties with China, poses an intriguing dilemma: Whose interests is Musk serving—those of the United States, his own business ventures? Former U.S. President Donald Trump, despite his shakeup in foreign policy and vital strategic decisions on Russia, has ostensibly been in touch with Putin as well—reportedly engaging in up to seven private calls since leaving office last time. Musk, Trump’s highly influential ally and senior advisor, has already shown his readiness to navigate these international relationships in ways that serve his business interests. But when advising Trump on foreign policy—especially on issues related to Russia and China—whose best interests are Musk truly pushing? Are these geopolitical interactions influenced merely by his personal commercial ambitions, or is he, knowingly or unknowingly, swayed in favor of Russian or Chinese interests? These definitive questions shed light on a critical tension at the intersection of global business, geopolitics, and personal ambition.