Despite his repeated claims that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war “within 24 hours,” U.S. President Donald Trump now faces a geopolitical reality that contradicts his rhetoric. Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no interest in a settlement that does not involve Ukraine’s capitulation, forcing Trump to navigate a conflict where his promised swift resolution remains elusive.
With no viable path to fulfilling his campaign pledge, the administration appears to be seeking a scapegoat—and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has become the primary target.
A Predictable Shift in Narrative
Trump’s foreign policy messaging has long been centred on his self-proclaimed negotiating skills. Throughout his re-election campaign, he positioned himself as a dealmaker capable of resolving complex global conflicts where others had failed. The claim to end the Russia-Ukraine war in a single day was a key component of this strategy, designed to appeal to voters eager for a swift resolution and a reduction in U.S. involvement abroad.
However, now in office, Trump faces a stark contradiction: his declared ability to broker peace is at odds with Putin’s strategic interests. Moscow has made it clear that any ceasefire or settlement would only occur under conditions that effectively dismantle Ukraine’s sovereignty. This reality undermines Trump’s grand promises and leaves him in need of an explanation for why peace remains elusive.
Rather than acknowledging the impracticality of his claim, Trump’s administration has pivoted toward a familiar tactic—shifting responsibility. The narrative emerging from his allies suggests that it is not Russia’s unyielding stance that is the obstacle to peace, but rather Ukraine’s unwillingness to accept terms that would amount to surrender.
The Oval Office Confrontation and Rubio’s Demand
This shift in narrative became apparent following a tense exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy during their meeting in the Oval Office. Reports of a heated argument surfaced almost immediately, and Trump’s allies wasted no time in framing the incident as evidence of Zelenskyy’s supposed intransigence.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was among those who seized on the moment, suggesting that for dialogue between Washington and Kyiv to be restored, Zelenskyy should publicly apologise for his conduct during the meeting. This demand, presented as a matter of diplomatic courtesy, was in reality a political manoeuvre designed to reinforce the idea that Ukraine is the problem in the conflict, not Russia.
Zelenskyy, however, rejected the notion of an apology. In a subsequent interview with Fox News, a network known for its close ties to the Trump administration, he insisted that he had done nothing inappropriate and had no reason to apologise. The interview itself was indicative of the broader effort to shape public perception, with questions seemingly aligned with the Trump administration’s interests.
Trump’s Media Strategy and Its Role in Diplomacy
The Oval Office confrontation was not an isolated incident but rather a reflection of Trump’s approach to diplomatic meetings. Unlike traditional U.S. presidents, who maintain formal protocols for encounters with foreign leaders, Trump has turned such meetings into extended media spectacles.
Typically, diplomatic meetings involve brief, pre-arranged statements followed by one or two questions from journalists, after which the leaders proceed to private discussions. Trump, however, has transformed these encounters into prolonged exchanges in front of the cameras, often involving carefully selected journalists who share the administration’s political outlook.
This strategy has been evident in meetings with other world leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, where U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance played a central role in steering discussions towards politically charged topics. The pattern was repeated with Zelenskyy, with the Ukrainian leader placed in a setting designed to pressure him into a defensive position.
Trump’s Geopolitical Goals and the Ukraine Conflict
Trump’s broader approach to Ukraine must be viewed in the context of his foreign policy priorities. He has consistently expressed a preference for closer ties with authoritarian leaders, including Putin, while maintaining a more transactional approach with traditional U.S. allies.
His administration’s rhetoric suggests an inclination to scale back U.S. involvement in Eastern Europe, a position that aligns with the views of certain factions within his political base. By portraying Ukraine as unwilling to engage in peace talks, Trump reinforces the argument that continued American support is futile—potentially laying the groundwork for reducing military aid.
However, the reality remains unchanged: Putin has shown no interest in a negotiated settlement that does not involve Ukraine’s capitulation. Trump’s previous assertions that he could swiftly end the war were based on the assumption that pressuring Ukraine into making concessions would be sufficient. Now, with Kyiv refusing to accept such terms and Putin remaining steadfast, the administration is left searching for an explanation as to why its promised solution has not materialised.
The Role of Rubio and the Foreign Policy Establishment
The call for Zelenskyy to apologise is part of a broader effort to redefine U.S. policy towards Ukraine. Rubio, once regarded as a respected foreign policy figure, has increasingly aligned himself with Trump’s agenda. His demand for an apology fits within the wider narrative that seeks to frame Ukraine as the obstacle to peace.
Former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton has openly criticised Rubio and other officials close to Trump, arguing that they should resign to preserve their reputations. However, many within Trump’s inner circle appear to believe that personal reputation is of little consequence in the evolving political landscape of the United States.
Reframing Failure
The ongoing tensions between Washington and Kyiv reflect a strategic shift in Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war. Faced with the realisation that his promise of a swift resolution cannot be fulfilled, Trump has moved to reframe the narrative, positioning Zelenskyy—and by extension, Ukraine—as the primary obstacle to peace.
This approach serves both to deflect attention from the impracticality of his original claims and to justify potential changes in U.S. policy. However, it does not change the fundamental reality: the war continues not because Ukraine refuses to surrender, but because Russia remains committed to its objectives.
As the conflict drags on, Trump’s challenge will be maintaining this narrative without alienating key allies or completely undermining U.S. credibility on the global stage. For Ukraine, the stakes remain high, as it must navigate an increasingly complex relationship with an American administration whose priorities may not align with its own strategic interests.
Read also:
Trump’s “Falsehoods” on Ukraine and NATO: A Critical Examination
