Trump Promised Victory — But Built a Regime of Pause

U.S. and China: Concessions Under Economic Pressure

On May 12, 2025, the United States and China reached an agreement to temporarily reduce mutual tariffs for 90 days, aiming to ease tensions in the ongoing trade war. During negotiations in Geneva, the U.S. agreed to lower tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, while China reduced duties on American goods from 125% to 10%, as reported by The New York Times.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized that neither side seeks an economic rupture and stressed the importance of balanced trade for global economic stability, according to Associated Press. China, in turn, announced the suspension or cancellation of several non-tariff measures against the U.S., including restrictions on the export of rare earth elements, according to Financial Times.

This agreement was a response to mounting pressure from businesses and the threat of a global recession. U.S. companies had paused orders, fearing price hikes and supply chain disruptions, while Chinese factories faced a sharp drop in export demand. Financial markets reacted positively, as noted by AP: S&P 500 futures rose by 2.6%, and the Dow Jones index climbed 2%.

India and Pakistan: A Temporary Ceasefire — Again with U.S. Involvement

On April 22, 2025, a terrorist attack took place in Pahalgam (Kashmir): 26 people were killed, dozens injured, including civilians and tourists. Responsibility was claimed by The Resistance Front, a proxy group for Lashkar-e-Taiba, operating from Pakistani territory. India accused Islamabad of aiding terrorism — a charge the Pakistani authorities called “groundless.”

Two weeks later, New Delhi launched a series of military operations along the Line of Control, stating it was targeting militant camps. The Pakistani side reported destruction in border areas and civilian casualties. The Guardian covered the events in detail. Tensions escalated to the point that both countries closed their airspace and announced partial mobilization of rapid response forces.

Amid the threat of nuclear escalation, the United States reactivated its diplomatic engagement. According to Reuters, it was the administration of current President Donald Trump that conducted a series of direct negotiations with both sides. The U.S. Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor acted as coordinators for military communication channels between India and Pakistan. The result was a joint ceasefire statement issued on May 10.

Officially, New Delhi claims the decision was made through direct dialogue between military officials. However, the fact that Pakistan thanked both the U.S. and China for their “stabilizing pressure,” as reported by El HuffPost, reveals the real scale of international involvement.

The ceasefire remains in effect, but it is fragile. Already on May 11, both sides exchanged accusations of violating the agreement. Residents of border villages report nightly gunfire, and media outlets note increased drone surveillance activity on both sides of the frontier.

Russia and Ukraine: Steps Toward Talks Amid Ongoing Fighting

Amid the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, both sides have expressed readiness to resume direct negotiations. Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a meeting with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky on May 15 in Istanbul, without preconditions, referring to the 2022 agreement known as the Istanbul Communiqué.

In response, Zelensky stated he was ready for a personal meeting — provided there is an immediate and complete ceasefire starting May 12. He emphasized that only after a stable truce is established can constructive talks take place.

The international community is actively supporting diplomatic efforts. Leaders of France, Germany, and Poland visited Kyiv, calling for an immediate ceasefire and warning of potential additional sanctions against Russia if it refuses to de-escalate.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has also urged the immediate start of negotiations, emphasizing the importance of ending hostilities to save lives, according to Financial Times.

Thus, despite continued tensions and ongoing fighting, there are signs of a possible resumption of the negotiation process between Russia and Ukraine — with active participation from international mediators.

The U.S.: Architect of Strategic Pauses

Amid a series of conflicts — from South Asia to Eastern Europe and the Pacific region — the role of the United States is becoming increasingly clear: it acts as the conductor of temporary pauses, not reconciliations. America isn’t resolving conflicts — it’s putting them on hold, using a mix of pressure, incentives, and strategic concessions.

In the case of China, Washington stepped back not out of goodwill, but because the economic wear was mutual. As both sides admitted, the Geneva talks weren’t driven by ideological convergence but by fear of a shared recession. The same applies to India and Pakistan: U.S. diplomacy once again functioned not as an offer but as a hardline containment channel. Opening a direct line between military leaders — that’s classic American crisis management.

As for Russia and Ukraine — the U.S. has chosen a new tactic: instead of participating in the negotiation process, it has deliberately stepped back to increase pressure. The refusal to mediate directly is not passivity but a way to step aside and intensify the perception of the Kremlin’s isolation. This vacuum leaves Russia with two options: either return to the negotiating table under weaker terms, or deepen its isolation and increase sanctions risks.

The system works. Wherever the U.S. is present — tensions subside, even if briefly. Where it is absent — escalation accelerates. But this isn’t a strategic resolution; it’s tactical deceleration of history. And in this deceleration, paradoxically, the most important thing emerges: time. Time for maneuvering, for respite, for saving lives.

America doesn’t distribute “peace.” It trades in silence. And in a world where war has once again become multi-fronted — silence is currency.

Ironically, it was Donald Trump himself who, during his campaign, most loudly accused Joe Biden and the entire previous administration of a “perpetual strategy of delay.” He claimed: “They freeze because they’re afraid to decide.” He promised to end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours” and said he could even talk to Putin.

And now — the exact opposite: his administration freezes the conflict with China for a 90-day window, postpones the Kashmir issue, and steps aside from Ukraine. Everywhere — not resolution, but delay. He acts almost like Biden — only louder, with a different set of words.

So no matter how we label this strategy — “deceleration,” “containment,” or “a temporary pause” — the essence remains unchanged. America no longer wins. America delays.