The Moldovan Shortcut to Trump’s Nobel?

Donald Trump’s obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize has pushed him to meddle in every conflict he can touch. And Moldova may now emerge as the most convenient setting for fulfilling the U.S. President’s elusive dream

Despite Donald Trump’s campaign promises, US efforts to broker peace between Moscow and Kyiv have so far done little to bring an end to the war. Many of those involved in the process are now showing signs of mutual irritation and fatigue, which is gradually turning into open rhetorical sparring. Just recently, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov lamented the inability to agree on a third round of talks in Istanbul, blaming it on Kyiv’s unwillingness and insufficient pressure from Washington. In response, Donald Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg rejected the accusations as “Orwellian” and called for an immediate transition to peace negotiations. In confidential discussions with EU and NATO countries, Ukraine has been signaling its willingness to make concessions in pursuit of a settlement. At the same time, Russia continues to advance on the battlefield, although it still remains far from full control over the Ukrainian regions it has incorporated into its constitution. In parallel, there is ongoing talk about new sanctions against Russia, promoted by some US lawmakers. However, the White House is in no rush to push them forward and repeatedly brings up the idea of a trilateral presidential summit in Istanbul. The United States recently reduced military deliveries to Ukraine, though it is not fully withdrawing from the conflict. Diplomatic contacts have not produced immediate results, and military analysts are already discussing an autumn campaign. The pendulum of the conflict could swing either way, yet no scenario reliably incentivizing negotiations is in sight, apart from Moscow’s infamous “goodwill”. Brussels, naturally, continues to fully support Kyiv, while in Moscow, semi-official statements have introduced a new demand: Ukraine’s renunciation of EU membership, which is increasingly taking on the characteristics of a military alliance. Against this backdrop, Donald Trump has already referred to his campaign promises about quickly ending the war as “sarcasm” and is now turning his attention to other international issues in search of peace-brokering achievements. The fixation on winning the Nobel Peace Prize has driven the US president to intervene in every conflict within his reach. A serious escalation between India and Pakistan, marked by terrorist attacks, missile strikes, and casualties among both military personnel and civilians, was defused relatively quickly. However, it is widely understood that de-escalation was primarily the result of mutual nuclear deterrence, as well as the role of China, which continues to supply Pakistan with advanced weaponry. Both New Delhi and Islamabad realized they could not let the situation to rage out of control, and, after exchanging painful blows, independently opted to scale back tensions. Therefore, Pakistan’s subsequent gestures and its nomination of Trump for the coveted prize are unlikely to have any real impact. The situation surrounding US involvement in the Middle East, particularly on Israel’s side, appears even less promising. Tel Aviv is facing heavy criticism, including from within the United States, for its excessive aggression in the Gaza Strip. Preemptive strikes on Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, largely driven by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s domestic political troubles, can hardly be viewed as anything other than deliberate escalation. The fact that Donald Trump authorized military operations against the Yemeni Houthis and, more notably, unprovoked missile strikes on Iran in support of Israel’s adventurism clearly undermines any portrayal of Washington as a peacekeeper in the Middle East. Nor will the bold declarations from the US president and his entourage about allegedly destroying Iran’s nuclear program help to change that perception. Meanwhile, Rwanda’s Foreign Ministry recently declared that Donald Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. They say US involvement helped facilitate reconciliation after 30 years of conflict between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. On June 27, a corresponding agreement was signed in Washington, D.C., pending ratification by the two countries’ leaders. It envisions the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from the DRC, the establishment of a coordinated security mechanism, and American access to the region’s mineral resources. The problem, however, is that the truce remains extremely fragile, as the central government, especially in Congo, has little control over the armed groups responsible for the escalation over the past three years. Therefore, the Nobel Committee is likely to keep a close eye on developments and is unlikely to offer premature accolades to the American president, especially amid the ongoing trade and diplomatic tensions between the US and the EU. Donald Trump faces objective difficulties on the domestic front, particularly with his promised reduction of the budget deficit and the broader implementation of his campaign program, which significantly raises the stakes for achievements in foreign policy. Yet even there, the results appear lackluster. Many of the so-called “victories” turn out to be questionable upon closer examination. For instance, Washington has formally managed to “pressure” NATO members into sharply increasing their defense spending to 5% of GDP. However, only 3.5% of that is earmarked for strictly military purposes, and the target is set for 2035, by which time Trump will be long out of office and no one will be obligated to fulfill his ambitions. In any case, these developments have little to do with a peacekeeping agenda and hardly resonate with a large segment of the American electorate. Domestic pressure – with critical midterm elections for the US Senate coming up in 2026, where many expect a Democratic comeback - keeps pulling Donald Trump’s attention back to Europe. Just a few days ago, he claimed credit for averting a war between Serbia and Kosovo by threatening trade sanctions. Yet no one takes this bravado seriously anymore. Kosovo has hosted UN peacekeepers for years, including a Moldovan contingent, while Belgrade and Pristina are both aiming for EU membership. Thus, the situation in the region remains relatively stable even without direct US involvement. The situation is quite different in Moldova. Relations between the two banks of the Dniester remain unpredictable amid the weakening position of the PAS party ahead of the parliamentary elections. The peacekeeping mission involving Russia fails to inspire confidence among Moldovan authorities, and political negotiations have long been stalled. For years, Chisinau counted on the shifting international landscape to create favorable conditions for regaining control over the region, with the prospect of closer ties to the European Union expected to transform the regional dynamics. However, the trajectory of these changes so far does not guarantee the regime an easy path in Transnistria. Today, Washington shows almost no interest in Moldovan affairs – funding for non-governmental organizations and several public sector projects has been cut, and the construction of the new embassy complex remains on hold. The US still has not appointed an ambassador to Moldova. The ruling party is deeply wary of a paradigm shift, as unpredictable interference from Donald Trump, who is skeptical of the EU and operates through quick deals and resource access, could topple the entire framework built to preserve the current authoritarian regime. Likely, one of the key tasks for Moldova’s new ambassador to the US, Vlad Kulminski, will be to neutralize Washington’s interest in the Transnistrian settlement, thereby avoiding unforeseen scenarios and potential political costs. If successful, Donald Trump will have to seek a stage for his peacemaking talents and Nobel ambitions elsewhere.