So, let’s explore the narrative shaping up around some major diplomatic challenges that former President Donald Trump might face if he steps into the role of peacemaker. It’s a conversation full of twists, underlying tensions, and high-stakes decision-making, with Ukraine sitting right at the heart of it all. Whether you support or reject Trump’s political actions, one thing’s clear: any potential moves in global diplomacy will ripple through U.S. policy, alliances, and conflicts in significant ways.
To begin, Trump has a track record of leveraging unpredictability in diplomacy. Think of gestures like threatening military force to soften not just adversaries but at times, even allies (Iran, Greenland, and Panama come to mind). He may use a similar approach today, and as history shows, such tactics often create high drama mixed with rare openings for deals. But how does this link to Ukraine? Let’s dig deeper.
### Looking Toward Ukraine: Trump’s “24-Hour Deal” Promise
If there’s one international crisis that’s dominated headlines, it’s the war in Ukraine—an intense conflict with Russia that has left catastrophic human and economic costs in its wake. Over the course of the war, Russia has suffered devastating losses, with around 200,000 dead and over half a million wounded, according to estimates. On the surface, these figures might suggest that Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, could be searching for an off-ramp to alleviate the strain. However, evidence suggests otherwise. Putin doesn’t appear to be rushing toward a settlement, even as the toll mounts.
Trump, on the other hand, has confidently pitched himself as the man capable of brokering a deal—fast. He’s promised to end the conflict “in 24 hours” or even, intriguingly, before officially taking office. That sounds bold, doesn’t it? But even among his own administration, that vision is being recalibrated. Keith Kellogg, a retired general and close Trump ally now serving as his special envoy for Ukraine, has recently tempered expectations. He told Fox News that resolving the war may take around 100 days—“enough to make sure it’s solid, sustainable, and puts an end to the carnage.”
### Breaking Down the Elements of a Potential Peace Deal
But what might peace in Ukraine actually look like under any framework for negotiation? Here’s where the lines of agreement and opposition emerge. Current and former officials across both the Biden and Trump camps seem to privately acknowledge one sobering possibility: Russia would likely keep the 20% of Ukrainian territory it currently occupies. It’s a grim reality for many Ukrainians, but the comparison often drawn is with the Korean War armistice of 1953—an agreement that led to a ceasefire without resolving long-term tensions.
The thorny issue, and arguably the bigger question, isn’t just about redrawing boundaries—it’s about security guarantees. Here’s the dilemma: How do you ensure Russia doesn’t simply use a ceasefire as a strategic pause? Imagine a scenario where Putin uses the breathing room to rearm, regroup, and launch another offensive years down the line, more prepared than ever. That’s a situation neither Ukraine nor its Western allies can afford to risk.
According to Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to President Joe Biden, there has been substantial groundwork laid over the past year to ensure such a scenario doesn’t materialize. Sullivan talks about “putting the architecture in place” for Ukraine’s long-term security—presumably a mix of military aid commitments and diplomatic safeguards aimed to deter future Russian aggression.
### Ukraine’s Doubts: Zelensky Sticks to NATO
But here’s the catch: Ukraine’s leadership remains deeply skeptical of these proposals. President Volodymyr Zelensky, who’s become a global symbol of resistance against tyranny, views many security assurances as just empty promises. And perhaps, not without reason. Memories of past agreements, like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum—which was signed by the U.S., the U.K., and Russia and guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal—still loom large. When push came to shove, that agreement failed to deter Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, let alone the full-scale invasion in 2022.
For Zelensky, NATO membership remains the ultimate red line. In his view, only the firm backing of the world’s most powerful military alliance can genuinely prevent Putin from striking again. But NATO membership for Ukraine is controversial, with major hurdles—from fears of escalating a direct NATO-Russia confrontation to divisions among alliance members about where such a move could lead next.
### Trump’s Timing With Putin: What Stands Out?
One striking element of Trump’s approach is his stated intention to meet with Putin “soon.” That’s quite telling, especially when you contrast it with President Biden, who hasn’t spoken to the Russian leader in nearly three years. Trump’s seemingly eager willingness to sit down at the negotiating table might suggest a bold top-down approach to diplomacy. Yet, can such personal engagement fundamentally shift the dynamics of this entrenched conflict? Or, does it risk appearing as a concession of legitimacy to Putin, who remains under fire globally for his aggressive policies?
### Layers of Complexity
What emerges here is a diplomatic chessboard packed with difficult choices. If you’re asking whether peace in Ukraine hinges on Trump’s unconventional tactics or Biden’s more methodical strategy, you’re not alone. The truth is, neither camp seems to hold an easy or clean-cut solution. From territorial compromises to multilayered security models, almost every option carries significant trade-offs and uncertainties.
And let’s not forget the broader stakes. A resolution to the Ukraine war isn’t just about ending the immediate conflict—it’s about signaling what global powers like the U.S. and its allies will or won’t tolerate. For Ukraine, it’s about sovereignty and survival. For Russia, it’s about redefining its place on the world stage after years of acting as a geopolitical disruptor. For NATO and other Western powers, it’s about maintaining credibility in a world that many fear teeters toward new polarities.
As these narratives unfold, one thing is certain: The fog of war leaves no easy answers. Whether peace comes through Trump’s brash, high-speed promises or Biden’s patient, foundation-building policies remains anyone’s guess. What’s clear, though, is that an eventual settlement will require navigating a web of historic mistrust, geopolitical tensions, and fragile alliances. Until then, both Ukraine and the world will continue to wait, watching diplomacy’s slow, uncertain dance play out in real-time.
