Since taking office in January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump has made ending the Russia-Ukraine war a cornerstone of his foreign policy, a promise he famously claimed he could achieve within 24 hours during his 2024 campaign. Now, over 100 days into his presidency, the conflict persists, revealing the complexities of negotiating peace in a war that has raged since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. A mix of high-profile diplomacy, economic pressure, and controversial proposals has characterized Trump’s approach. Still, it has yet to yield a breakthrough, raising questions about its effectiveness and long-term implications.
Trump’s strategy hinges on direct engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, often sidelining traditional multilateral frameworks like NATO or the European Union. Early in his term, on February 12, 2025, Trump initiated a phone call with Putin, marking a significant departure from previous U.S. policy that avoided direct leader-to-leader talks with Moscow during the conflict. This was followed by a call to Zelenskyy, signaling Trump’s intent to act as a mediator. Subsequent meetings, such as those in Saudi Arabia in March 2025, involved U.S., Russian, and Ukrainian officials discussing ceasefire terms, including a proposed Black Sea navigation agreement. However, these talks faltered when Russia conditioned its participation on lifting financial sanctions, a demand Kyiv and Washington rejected.
A key element of Trump’s approach is leveraging U.S. economic and military aid to pressure both parties. He has repeatedly warned Zelenskyy that continued U.S. support—critical for Ukraine’s defense—depends on Kyiv’s willingness to negotiate on Trump’s terms. This was evident in a heated Oval Office meeting in late February 2025, after which Trump briefly paused military aid to Ukraine, which sparked outrage in Kyiv and among European allies. The pause was lifted, but the incident underscored Trump’s readiness to use aid as a bargaining chip. Conversely, Trump has threatened Russia with new sanctions and tariffs to push Putin toward a deal, particularly as Russia’s economy shows signs of strain from prolonged war costs and reduced oil revenues.
Trump’s proposals have stirred controversy, particularly his apparent willingness to accept Russian control over Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine, territories seized by Moscow in 2014 and 2022, respectively. In an April 2025 interview, Trump suggested that Crimea, long under Russian control, might remain so, a stance that contradicts Ukraine’s insistence on restoring its pre-2014 borders. This has alarmed Kyiv, who fears that Trump may prioritize a quick deal over Ukraine’s sovereignty. European leaders, like EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, have warned that conceding territory could embolden authoritarian regimes globally, undermining international law.
Despite these efforts, progress remains elusive. Russia’s continued attacks on Ukrainian cities, such as the deadly Kyiv strikes in April 2025, have led Trump to question Putin’s commitment to peace publicly. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s agreement to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire has not been reciprocated by Moscow, which has rejected broader truce proposals. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated that Washington may withdraw from mediation if both sides do not present “concrete proposals” soon, reflecting growing frustration within the administration.
Critics argue that Trump’s transactional approach—emphasizing bilateral deals with Putin over inclusive negotiations—risks alienating Ukraine and weakening NATO. His exclusion of Ukraine from early U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia drew sharp criticism, as did his claim that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations triggered the war, a narrative that echoes Kremlin propaganda. Experts like Syracuse University’s Brian Taylor note that Ukraine’s NATO bid was unrealistic before 2022, undermining Trump’s historical framing.
As of May 2025, Trump’s team, including envoy Keith Kellogg and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, continues to push for a ceasefire based on current battle lines, with no NATO membership for Ukraine and limited territorial restoration. While Trump’s pressure on Russia’s faltering economy offers leverage, his willingness to entertain territorial concessions raises fears of a peace that favors Moscow. The coming weeks will be critical as Trump’s self-imposed deadlines loom and both Russia and Ukraine face mounting internal and external pressures. Whether Trump can deliver his promise remains uncertain, but his unorthodox diplomacy has undeniably reshaped the conversation around one of Europe’s deadliest conflicts.
