In a stark assessment, former CIA analyst and strategic commentator Larry Johnson warns that although U.S. President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda includes ending major international conflicts, he currently lacks the diplomatic or strategic “cards” needed to resolve the war in Ukraine. Simultaneously, Johnson suggests that the fragile truce in Gaza is at serious risk of collapsing, posing significant geopolitical implications for U.S. policy and Middle‐East regional stability.
President Trump Doesn’t Have the Cards to End the Ukraine War
Johnson argues that despite President Trump’s public pronouncements of a desire to broker peace in the Ukraine conflict, he faces substantial structural constraints. The war has become deeply entrenched; both Ukraine and Russia hold maximalist positions, and neither appears ready for meaningful concessions. Analysts highlight that the core demands of the parties—territorial control, security guarantees, and alliance commitments—remain too far apart for simple mediation.
Furthermore, Johnson suggests the president’s negotiating leverage is limited: key stakeholders including European allies, the Ukrainian leadership, and the Russian side are sceptical of U.S. influence to force an outcome. One issue is that any peace framework may demand Ukraine to relinquish territory or NATO membership rights, which Ukraine and its backers resist. As a result, the president may lack the “cards” to bring parties to the table under terms that would satisfy all sides.
Finally, Johnson contends that Trump’s previous posture of seeking “negotiations before ceasefire” has deepened friction with Kyiv and its European allies, undermining trust in U.S. mediation. With the war still active and the balance of forces shifting, Johnson warns that optimism about a quick resolution may be unwarranted.
Gaza Ceasefire Will Likely Collapse
Turning to the Middle East, Johnson contends that the current truce in the Gaza conflict is highly precarious. Observers note that the agreement, brokered in part under U.S. auspices, remains vulnerable due to missing implementation steps and deep mistrust between the parties. For example, reports show delays in starting phase-two negotiations and lack of clarity on key terms such as prisoner exchanges and withdrawal of forces from Gaza.
Johnson emphasises that while the ceasefire may have paused major hostilities, without concrete follow-through it is more a pause than a resolution. The presence of armed factions, competing agendas on the ground, and a political environment in Israel that remains sceptical of a lasting settlement are all warning signs that the arrangement could unravel.
Additionally, the analyst points out that the president’s leverage here is similarly limited: the U.S. can facilitate diplomacy, but cannot unilaterally enforce disarmament or guarantee compliance by non-state actors. Without strong regional partners, realistic frameworks and enforcement mechanisms, the ceasefire is at risk of reverting into renewed conflict. Johnson’s conclusion: the agreement may hold only temporarily unless the deeper structural issues are addressed.
Larry Johnson’s analysis paints a sobering picture for U.S. foreign-policy ambitions under President Trump’s second term. On both Ukraine and Gaza, despite high-profile engagement and negotiation efforts, the core obstacles—mismatched incentives, weak leverage, deep mistrust—remain largely unresolved. The suggestion is clear: while the president may wish to end these conflicts, he does not yet possess the strategic or diplomatic “cards” necessary to bring that about.
