[Trump’s] efforts, while consistent with his “America First” rhetoric, may ultimately undermine both Ukraine’s sovereignty and the broader interests of the West.
As the war in Ukraine rages on, U.S. President Donald Trump’s diplomatic efforts to bring the conflict to a close have taken center stage, albeit in a manner that has raised eyebrows both at home and abroad. After promising to end the war in a matter of hours, Trump’s approach has evolved, revealing the complicated and often unpredictable nature of international diplomacy—especially when dealing with two adversaries: Russia and Ukraine.
Trump’s bold campaign promise to end the war within 24 hours of taking office now seems a distant fantasy. Initially, he gave himself six months to achieve a ceasefire, later dismissing the 24-hour commitment as “sarcastic.” This rhetorical backpedaling highlights the gap between campaign promises and the realities of geopolitics, particularly in a conflict as entrenched and multifaceted as the war in Ukraine.
At the heart of Trump’s diplomacy lies a paradox: he has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of making concessions on all sides to secure peace. This is an approach that may appeal to his “America First” supporters, who view the war as a costly and unnecessary engagement for U.S. interests. However, it also raises serious questions about the broader implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty and its relationship with the West.
From the outset, Trump’s conversations with both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin have underscored his unconventional approach. His phone call with Putin in mid-February, the first since Trump took office, was a marked departure from U.S. foreign policy, as the White House excluded key European allies and even Kyiv from the early discussions. This exclusion has caused friction, with European leaders and Ukraine’s government expressing frustration over not being involved in the talks directly.
One of the most striking aspects of the ceasefire negotiations is Trump’s insistence that Ukraine accept a hardline stance if it wants continued military support from the United States. This ultimatum has created a volatile dynamic in which Ukraine is caught between negotiating with an unpredictable U.S. administration and the reality of continuing to fight a brutal war against Russia. Trump’s decision to withhold military aid and intelligence support further complicated the situation, leading to internal discord and uncertainty within Ukraine and its allies.
On the other hand, Russia’s response to Trump’s proposals has been far from cooperative. While the Kremlin has agreed in principle to some ceasefire terms, its demands—ranging from halting Ukraine’s military mobilization to lifting sanctions—seem designed more to perpetuate the status quo than to foster a genuine peace agreement. Trump’s assertion that Russia might be “dragging its feet” is perhaps the most telling moment of this diplomatic dance. The U.S. president, despite his earlier optimism, seems to recognize that Russia’s strategic goals may not align with his own, let alone with those of Ukraine.
The drama surrounding Trump’s negotiations has not been limited to U.S.-Russia-Ukrainian talks alone. A particularly revealing moment came in late February, when a public spat between Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Zelensky highlighted the deepening rift between Washington and Kyiv. Vance’s suggestion that Ukraine should explore diplomacy with Russia, while simultaneously accusing Zelensky of not seeking peace, caught both Zelensky and European leaders off guard. The ensuing chaos—culminating in Zelensky being asked to leave the Oval Office early—was a reminder of how fragile the relationship between Ukraine and its American ally has become.
Despite these setbacks, the negotiations have continued. A ceasefire proposal, agreed upon in principle by Ukraine in early March, fell apart when Russia presented a new list of demands that made the agreement untenable. Russia’s agreement to halt attacks on energy infrastructure, for example, was undermined by a later clarification that only energy infrastructure was off-limits, with other vital sectors remaining vulnerable to Russian aggression.
Trump’s diplomatic strategy, meanwhile, has shown a willingness to engage with both sides while sidelining key stakeholders. His outreach to Russian officials, coupled with his ever-shifting stance on Ukraine, has strained U.S. credibility with both European allies and Ukrainian officials. The “productive” talks in Saudi Arabia may have achieved some temporary progress in the Black Sea region, but the real sticking point remains: Russia’s unwillingness to negotiate in good faith and the U.S. president’s reluctance to fully commit to supporting Ukraine without strong leverage.
As Trump navigates this high-stakes diplomatic terrain, it’s clear that ending the war in Ukraine is far more complicated than he initially believed. With European allies frustrated, Ukraine at a crossroads, and Russia playing its usual game of brinkmanship, the chances of a quick resolution are slim. Trump may have promised a fast resolution, but the reality is that peace in Ukraine remains elusive—a testament to the difficulties of achieving lasting solutions in conflicts marked by entrenched interests, power plays, and geopolitical realities.
In the end, Trump’s diplomacy—marked by an unwillingness to fully back Ukraine while attempting to broker a deal with Russia—has exposed the tensions within U.S. foreign policy. His efforts, while consistent with his “America First” rhetoric, may ultimately undermine both Ukraine’s sovereignty and the broader interests of the West. As the negotiations drag on, the world is left wondering whether Trump’s bold promises will ever materialize—or whether they are merely a reflection of the limits of his unconventional approach to global diplomacy.
Nicholas Lovric is a researcher and consultant specializing in Russian and Eastern European affairs. His work typically involves analyzing political, economic and social trends in the region. His expertise spans subjects such as international relations, geopolitical dynamics, security issues and regional development.
OpEd Column Syndication 