Let’s break this down together and explore the intriguing narrative surrounding Donald J. Trump and his bold promises to end the Ukraine war—a topic that seems to have sparked both fascination and skepticism.
Picture this: it’s campaign season, and former President Trump, now vying to reclaim the White House, takes the stage with a sensational promise. Not just any promise, but a pledge to end the war in Ukraine—a conflict that’s become Europe’s most devastating land war since World War II—in a mere 24 hours. Bold, right? He wasn’t just talking about doing it during his presidency, either. No, he claimed he’d resolve the crisis even before setting foot back in the Oval Office, while still president-elect. From rallies to debates to podcasts, Trump repeated this pledge like a mantra, making it a cornerstone of his campaign.
But here’s the twist: that promise was already broken the moment Trump took the oath of office. Despite his vows, the war was still raging on inauguration day. In fact, by all accounts, Trump hadn’t made any significant moves toward fulfilling that epic promise during his transition. So, what gives? Was this just campaign rhetoric running headlong into reality?
The Promise That Never Was
Critics, like Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal, didn’t mince words. He argued that Trump’s so-called plan was missing a fundamental piece of the puzzle: Ukraine’s strength at the negotiating table. "Wars can’t be settled by bombast,” he said, suggesting that Trump’s approach ignored the complexities of securing a meaningful resolution. Many agreed that Trump’s bravado—fueled by his signature "I alone can fix it" ethos—set the stage for yet another overpromise that couldn’t beat reality.
If we rewind Trump’s political record, this isn’t exactly a new pattern. Remember the Mexico-funded border wall? Never built. Repealing and replacing Obamacare? Didn’t happen. Cutting trade and federal budget deficits? Nope. A 4-6% economic growth rate? Far from achieved. Or the so-called “peace plan” for Israel and Palestine, which he once optimistically deemed "not as difficult as people have thought"? Well, that too went nowhere.
The Ukraine promise, it seems, joined a growing list of lofty goals that dissolved upon closer examination. Yet, Trump’s unique political brand often lets him sidestep the fallout other leaders might face for broken promises. Where George H.W. Bush couldn’t live down his "no new taxes" pledge, Trump often manages to crash through unmet expectations without significant repercussions.
A Gaza Ceasefire Win—a Lot More Work in Ukraine
That said, Trump’s incoming administration didn’t begin without some international success. During his transition to a second term, he exerted pressure on Israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza. While President Joe Biden’s team had laid the groundwork, Trump’s involvement helped finalize the agreement just in time for his inauguration. Still, peace in Gaza doesn’t directly translate to peace in Ukraine. In Gaza, there was an existing peace framework waiting for a nudge; in Ukraine, Trump would be starting from zero.
In fact, his team appears to have already tempered earlier pledges. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s incoming special envoy for the Ukraine war, postponed planned visits to Kyiv and other European capitals, signaling a slower start. “I hope to resolve it within 100 days,” he said on Fox News—a far cry from the promised 24-hour resolution.
Political analysts like Kathryn Stoner from Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies called Trump’s 24-hour assertion “absurd,” noting that no one but Vladimir Putin could singlehandedly end the war so swiftly. But it’s not just about what Trump said; it’s also how he said it. Michael Kimmage, a Russia-Ukraine expert, suggested that Trump’s words might have been more about signaling his intentions—different from President Biden’s approach—than outlining a literal timeline.
Central to Trump’s rhetoric is his apparent desire to distinguish himself from the "forever wars" narrative and showcase himself as a dealmaker. But there’s a flip side. Trump’s critics worry that his admiration for Vladimir Putin, combined with his history of hostility toward Ukraine and skepticism of U.S. military aid to Kyiv, signals a resolution that may heavily favor Russia. Even Vice President-elect JD Vance hinted at a settlement echoing Russian priorities: forcing Ukraine to cede 20% of its territory and remain neutral rather than allying with the West.
Murky Path Forward
When pressed on why the Ukraine promise hadn’t been realized during the transition, Trump’s incoming press secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t address the pledge directly. Instead, she reiterated that ending the conflict would be a “top priority” during his second term. Trump has reportedly met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and expressed intentions to meet with Putin after inauguration, but concrete actions still seem far off.
For now, the strategy outlined by Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Representative Michael Waltz, appears less bold and more realistic—perhaps better reflecting the monumental challenge the Ukraine war presents. Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation, Waltz described a phased approach: first, identifying who needs to come to the negotiating table, then determining how to compel them to do so, and finally, crafting the framework for an agreement. It’s a far cry from snap-of-the-fingers simplicity, underscoring the complexities of ending a war that continues to devastate lives and carries potential for global escalation.
The Unanswered Questions
But even if Waltz’s method gains traction, there are huge, unanswered questions about what any resolution would involve. Ukraine is scarred by war, its cities and countryside in ruins. Who would pay for reconstruction? What might happen to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Putin and other Russian officials accused of war crimes? Would sanctions on Russia be eased—if so, under what conditions? And who would enforce the terms of any ceasefire? Each of these issues represents a major sticking point, raising thorny diplomatic, logistical, and ethical dilemmas.
Trump has mostly steered clear of diving deeply into these nitty-gritty questions. Instead, he’s leaned on rhetoric about the human cost of the war, frequently lamenting casualties in both Ukraine and Russia. Analysts like Kimmage suggest this lack of detail may be intentional. By keeping his plans vague, Trump arguably gains room to improvise—or even avoid painting himself into rhetorical corners in the first place.
A Show of Resolve or a Script Unwritten?
So, where does that leave us? President Trump enters his second term facing an uphill battle in Ukraine. His strident campaign promise to end the conflict in mere hours now feels expressly symbolic—meant more to showcase his confidence than his logistical precision. While vagueness in Trump’s approach provides him some flexibility, it also creates potential for missteps. The stakes couldn’t be higher, as Ukraine’s future, European stability, and broader East-West tensions hang in the balance.
For now, Trump’s presidency begins with more questions than answers on one of the most critical geopolitical challenges of our time. Whether his dealmaking persona can deliver tangible solutions—or whether reality will once again deflate his grandiose promises—remains to be seen. At least one thing is clear: this is a story still unfolding, and the clock is ticking far longer than the hours originally promised.
