Recent shifts in the geopolitical dynamics between Ukraine, the United States, and Russia suggest that initial fears about Donald Trump’s presidency and its impact on Ukraine are not only materialising but exacerbating an already dire situation.
Trump’s erratic and contradictory approach to the conflict has thrown Kyiv into uncertainty, while his rhetoric increasingly aligns with Russian talking points, raising serious concerns about his true intentions.
At the core of this situation is Trump’s ill-conceived proposal to Putin for a ceasefire, ostensibly to enable elections in Ukraine and subsequently lay the groundwork for a peace deal. This simplistic notion ignores the realities of war and effectively hands Moscow control over Ukraine’s political process. Predictably, Russia refused the offer, choosing instead to focus on bilateral negotiations with Washington regarding diplomatic and economic interests—further proof that Trump’s strategy is fundamentally flawed and easily manipulated by the Kremlin. No tangible progress was made toward ending the war, and even the formation of negotiating groups remains in limbo.
One of the most alarming aspects of Trump’s plan is his willingness to entertain the idea of Ukraine making economic concessions, including control over its natural resources, as a so-called “security guarantee.” This effectively frames Ukraine—rather than Russia—as the party responsible for securing peace, a deeply flawed premise that undermines Kyiv’s sovereignty. Additionally, Trump’s suggestion of a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine was swiftly dismissed by Moscow, which has made it clear that it will not tolerate any NATO presence on Ukrainian soil. This reality has left European leaders with little room to manoeuvre, as any deployment would require Russian consent, which is highly unlikely.
Trump’s handling of the situation has raised serious doubts about his ability—or willingness—to challenge Putin. The former U.S. president initially exuded confidence in his ability to broker a peace deal swiftly, but Putin has outmanoeuvred him at every turn. The Russian leader’s counteroffer—demanding a peace deal first, followed by a ceasefire—places Trump in an impossible position. Rather than acknowledging his failure, Trump has sought to shift blame onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, portraying them as obstacles to peace.
The European response has been cautious but firm. Leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer are preparing to meet Trump, not to endorse his approach, but to mitigate the potential damage of his reckless diplomacy. While they have signalled a willingness to support peace initiatives, they remain clear-eyed about the fact that any European peacekeeping force would require Russia’s approval—something that is unlikely to be granted under Putin’s current strategy.
Trump’s approach does not merely lack coherence; it dangerously flirts with appeasement. His administration has shown no strategic vision for compelling Putin to halt the aggression, nor has it pursued meaningful economic measures that could weaken Moscow’s war effort. Instead, Trump has hesitated on further sanctions and appears more interested in using Ukraine as a bargaining chip rather than a sovereign ally in need of support.
Meanwhile, Russia continues its military operations unabated, benefiting from the very uncertainty Trump’s policies have created. Despite sanctions, Moscow’s economy has yet to reach a breaking point, and Trump’s reluctance to take further action only emboldens the Kremlin. Ukraine, in turn, faces existential risks as it contends with the possibility of dwindling U.S. military support. Any reduction in arms shipments would critically weaken Kyiv’s defensive capabilities, effectively handing strategic advantages to Russia.
The insistence on elections in Ukraine under current conditions is yet another example of Trump’s fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict. Holding elections in a country actively at war is neither practical nor democratic, and the push for such a process appears more about public relations than a genuine effort to stabilise Ukraine. Trump seems aware of this but continues to use the topic to distract from his administration’s strategic failures.
The most pressing question remains: how will Trump force Putin’s hand? Thus far, he has demonstrated no capacity to do so. The absence of a concrete plan has left Washington without direction, and until Trump develops a credible strategy for influencing Moscow, his administration’s approach will continue to be defined by confusion and miscalculation.
For now, Ukraine remains in a defensive posture, Europe is left scrambling to navigate the shifting dynamics, and Russia continues to dictate the terms of engagement. Trump’s missteps have only deepened the crisis, making a meaningful resolution even more elusive.
