The Russia-Ukraine conflict has emerged as one of the most significant geopolitical challenges of our time, with far-reaching implications for global security, economic stability, and international relations. As President Donald Trump returns to the White House in 2025, the world watches closely to see how his administration will approach this protracted conflict. During his campaign and in previous meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump has repeatedly expressed confidence in his ability to bring the war to a swift conclusion. This article examines Trump’s potential strategies for ending the Russia-Ukraine war, analyzing his diplomatic approach, executive orders, and policy framework that may influence his peacemaking efforts. By exploring Trump’s unique negotiation style, past interactions with key leaders, and current policy positions, we can gain insight into how the 47th President of the United States might navigate the complex path toward peace in Eastern Europe.

Trump’s Diplomatic Approach to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Trump’s diplomatic approach to resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict appears centered on his personal relationships with both President Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. During a significant meeting with Zelensky at Trump Tower in New York in September 2024, Trump emphasized that “it was time Russia’s war in Ukraine was settled.” This meeting marked an important moment in their relationship, which had previously been characterized by tension and complexity. Standing alongside Zelensky, Trump stated, “I also have a very good relationship as you know with President Putin and I think if we win [the election] we’re going to get it resolved very quickly”2. This statement reveals Trump’s confidence in his ability to leverage personal diplomacy to achieve results where traditional diplomatic channels have struggled.

The September 2024 meeting also indicated a potential alignment between Trump and Zelensky on the desired outcome of the conflict. Zelensky expressed that they shared a “common view that the war has to be stopped and Putin can’t win,” and mentioned he would discuss details of his “victory plan” with Trump2. Following their meeting, Trump told Fox News that he “learned a lot” and emphasized that “We both want to see this end, and we both want to see a fair deal made. It should stop and the president (Zelensky) wants it to stop, and I’m sure President Putin wants it to stop and that’s a good combination”2.

Trump’s diplomatic style differs markedly from traditional approaches, favoring direct, personal engagement with key leaders over multilateral institutions and formal diplomatic processes. This personalized approach to foreign policy was a hallmark of his first administration and appears poised to continue in his second term. Trump seems to believe that his unique position—maintaining relationships with both Zelensky and Putin—creates an opportunity to broker a deal that has eluded others.

The meeting also revealed an important development in Trump’s stance toward Ukraine. Despite having criticized Zelensky repeatedly during his campaign, Trump expressed support for Ukraine’s position during their meeting. When Zelensky stated, “Putin killed so many people and of course we need to do everything to pressure him to stop this war. He’s on our territory,” Trump did not contradict this characterization of the conflict2. This suggests that while Trump is eager to end the war, he may not be pushing for Ukraine to simply concede territory to Russia without meaningful concessions in return.

However, Trump’s statement on his Truth Social account that if he is not elected president, “that war will never end, and will phase into WORLD WAR III”2 reveals his view of the conflict as potentially escalatory and his belief that his personal intervention is essential to preventing further deterioration of the situation. This framing of the conflict as potentially catastrophic absent his leadership provides insight into how Trump might approach negotiations—with urgency and a focus on achieving a deal rather than prolonged conflict management.

Political Division in the United States: Partisan Conflict and Declining Freedoms

Executive Orders and Policy Framework

Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has issued a series of executive orders that provide insight into his administration’s approach to international affairs and potentially signal elements of his strategy for addressing the Russia-Ukraine conflict. According to a memo from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce summarizing Trump’s executive orders through January 28, 2025, the president has taken decisive action across multiple policy areas, including government operations, finance and banking, trade and foreign affairs, and border security1.

Of particular relevance to the Russia-Ukraine situation is an executive order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which is likely to impact U.S. support for Ukraine. While the specific details of how this will affect military assistance to Ukraine are not fully elaborated in the available information, the order’s focus on reevaluating foreign aid commitments suggests a potential shift in how the U.S. approaches its support for Ukraine under Trump’s leadership1.

Trump’s executive orders generally take one of two approaches: direct substantive action that immediately changes policy, or directives to agency heads to review, study, propose, or recommend specific actions1. This dual approach allows the administration to make immediate changes where possible while setting in motion longer-term transformations that may impact U.S. foreign policy, including its approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The establishment of new administrative structures through executive order, such as the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), suggests an emphasis on streamlining government operations that could extend to foreign policy implementation1. If Trump seeks to rapidly engage in high-stakes negotiations over Ukraine, having efficient governmental mechanisms to support this diplomatic effort could be crucial.

Additionally, Trump’s order regarding the military’s role in protecting U.S. territorial integrity, while primarily focused on border security, demonstrates his willingness to use executive authority to define the role of military forces in addressing security challenges1. This approach might extend to how he frames and authorizes U.S. military support for allies and partners, including Ukraine.

The Federal Aid Freeze and Its Implications for Ukraine

In January 2025, the Trump administration ordered a comprehensive freeze on federal financial assistance through a two-page memo from the Office of Management and Budget. This directive required all federal agencies to temporarily suspend payments, with the exception of Social Security and Medicare benefits3. The justification provided in the memo stated that “The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve”3.

This sweeping freeze has potential implications for U.S. support to Ukraine, which has relied heavily on American financial and military assistance throughout the conflict. The memo created widespread confusion regarding which programs would be affected, particularly concerning whether assistance that first passes through states or organizations before reaching individuals would be included in the freeze3.

While the freeze does not explicitly target Ukraine aid, the broad nature of the directive and the exceptions mentioned (only Social Security and Medicare) suggest that foreign assistance programs could be impacted. This action may serve multiple purposes in Trump’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict:

First, it could function as a signal to both Ukraine and Russia that the dynamics of U.S. support are changing, potentially creating leverage for Trump in future negotiations. By demonstrating his willingness to pause financial assistance broadly, Trump establishes his seriousness about reassessing U.S. commitments and his readiness to make significant policy changes.

Second, the freeze allows the administration time to review existing aid programs and potentially restructure them to align with Trump’s vision for resolving the conflict. Rather than continuing previous administration policies, this pause creates space for developing a new approach that might include conditional aid tied to specific diplomatic progress.

Third, by creating uncertainty about future U.S. support, the freeze may incentivize both Ukraine and Russia to engage more seriously with Trump’s peace initiatives, knowing that the status quo of U.S. policy cannot be taken for granted. This approach aligns with Trump’s negotiation style of creating unpredictability to gain advantage in dealmaking.

The freeze affects billions of dollars in grants and could have significant implications for U.S. foreign policy priorities3. For Ukraine specifically, any interruption in military or economic assistance could impact its position on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, potentially creating urgency around reaching a settlement.

Trump’s Negotiation Style and Business Background

Trump’s approach to international diplomacy is deeply influenced by his background in business and real estate development. His negotiation style, honed over decades in the private sector, provides clues to how he might approach brokering peace between Russia and Ukraine. The Trump Organization’s recent $3 billion development project at Trump National Doral Miami offers an illustrative example of Trump’s business approach that may inform his diplomatic strategy4.

The Doral development represents a massive undertaking, involving the construction of 1,498 condominiums and approximately 142,000 square feet of commercial space4. Projects of this scale require navigating complex regulatory environments, securing approvals from multiple stakeholders, and balancing diverse interests—skills that parallel those needed in international diplomacy.

In securing approval for the Doral project, the Trump Organization demonstrated persistence through a protracted process, ultimately achieving a favorable outcome through a combination of relationship building, flexibility on certain issues, and steadfast commitment to core objectives4. These same qualities may characterize Trump’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine negotiations.

Trump’s Miami Development Approval: A Game-Changer in Real Estate During the Presidential Transition

Trump’s negotiation style typically involves several key elements that may be relevant to his Ukraine strategy:

• High-stakes positioning: Trump often begins negotiations with bold, sometimes maximalist positions to create room for concessions while still achieving his core objectives. 
• Relationship cultivation: Despite his tough public rhetoric, Trump places significant emphasis on personal relationships with key decision-makers, as evidenced by his statements about his relationships with both Zelensky and Putin. 
• Unpredictability as leverage: Trump’s unpredictable approach keeps negotiating partners off balance, potentially creating opportunities to secure concessions.
• Transactional mindset: Trump tends to view international relations through a transactional lens, focusing on specific, tangible outcomes rather than abstract principles or long-term institutional relationships. 
• Deadline pressure: Trump often uses time pressure to force decisions, as seen in his business deals and previous diplomatic efforts. 

Applied to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, these elements suggest Trump may pursue a strategy that combines personal diplomacy with both presidents, concrete proposals for territorial arrangements and security guarantees, and potentially economic incentives tied to specific actions by both parties.

Potential Scenarios for Trump’s Peace Plan

Based on Trump’s statements, executive actions, and negotiation style, several potential scenarios emerge for how he might approach ending the Russia-Ukraine war. While specific details of Trump’s peace plan remain undisclosed, analysis of available information suggests these possible approaches:

Scenario 1: Direct Trilateral Negotiations

Trump might arrange direct, high-level talks involving himself, Zelensky, and Putin, bypassing the more complex multilateral frameworks that have characterized previous peace efforts. This approach would align with Trump’s preference for personal diplomacy and direct negotiations with key decision-makers. The format could involve a series of one-on-one meetings followed by a trilateral summit aimed at reaching a comprehensive agreement.

In his meeting with Zelensky, Trump emphasized that “We both want to see this end, and we both want to see a fair deal made”2. This statement suggests Trump views the conflict as ultimately resolvable through a negotiated settlement that both sides could accept as “fair,” rather than through continued military confrontation.

Scenario 2: Phased Agreement with Economic Incentives

Trump might propose a phased agreement that includes incremental steps toward peace, each accompanied by specific economic incentives or sanctions relief. This approach would leverage Trump’s business background and his understanding of economic motivations.

The plan could include:

• Initial ceasefire and partial withdrawal of Russian forces.
  
• Economic relief and reconstruction assistance tied to compliance with agreement terms.
• Gradual normalization of diplomatic and economic relations.
• Long-term security arrangements with international guarantees 

Trump’s federal aid freeze3 suggests he is willing to use economic leverage as a diplomatic tool, which could extend to both positive incentives for compliance and negative consequences for violations of any agreement.

Scenario 3: Territorial Compromise with Security Guarantees

Trump might push for a territorial compromise that acknowledges certain Russian gains while preserving Ukrainian sovereignty and providing robust security guarantees for remaining Ukrainian territory. This scenario would reflect a pragmatic, results-oriented approach focused on ending the conflict rather than achieving an ideal outcome for either side.

When Zelensky stated during their meeting that “Putin can’t win,” Trump did not contradict this assertion2, suggesting he may support an outcome that prevents Russia from achieving all its territorial objectives while still offering a path to end the conflict.

Scenario 4: Regional Security Framework

Trump might propose a broader regional security framework that addresses not only the immediate Russia-Ukraine conflict but also longer-term security arrangements in Eastern Europe. This approach would reflect Trump’s tendency to think in terms of comprehensive deals rather than incremental solutions to specific problems.

The framework could include:

• Neutral status for Ukraine with international security guarantees.
• Limitations on NATO expansion while preserving alliance integrity.
• Economic cooperation mechanisms between Russia, Ukraine, and European partners.
• Verification and enforcement mechanisms with significant U.S. involvement 

Challenges and Obstacles to Trump’s Peace Efforts

Despite Trump’s confidence in his ability to resolve the conflict quickly, he faces significant challenges that could complicate peace efforts:

Entrenched Positions and Public Opinion

Both Ukrainian and Russian leadership face domestic political constraints that limit their flexibility in negotiations. Zelensky must consider Ukrainian public opinion, which remains strongly opposed to territorial concessions, while Putin has invested considerable political capital in framing the conflict as existential for Russia. Trump’s challenge will be finding a formula that allows both leaders to claim some form of victory to their domestic audiences.

NATO and European Allies

Trump’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict will necessarily impact relations with NATO allies, many of whom have committed substantial resources to supporting Ukraine. His previous criticism of NATO and recent actions like the federal aid freeze3 may create tension with European partners whose cooperation would be valuable in implementing any peace agreement.

Implementation and Enforcement Mechanisms

Even if Trump secures agreement on paper, ensuring compliance will require robust implementation and enforcement mechanisms. The history of failed ceasefires and agreements in this conflict underscores the difficulty of translating diplomatic breakthroughs into lasting peace. Trump’s executive orders across multiple policy areas1 suggest he is willing to use U.S. government resources to implement his priorities, but the specific mechanisms for enforcing a Ukraine peace deal remain to be developed.

Political Division in the United States: Partisan Conflict and Declining Freedoms

Timing and Political Calendar

Trump’s statement that he could resolve the conflict “quickly”2 may reflect political optimism rather than a realistic assessment of the diplomatic timeline. Complex peace negotiations typically require months or years of detailed work on specific provisions, verification mechanisms, and implementation schedules. The political calendar of his administration may create pressure for faster results than diplomatic realities allow.

The Economic Dimension: Reconstruction and Development

An often overlooked but critical component of any lasting peace agreement will be economic reconstruction and development. Here, Trump’s business background and emphasis on economic dealmaking may prove particularly relevant. His experience with large-scale development projects, such as the $3 billion Trump National Doral Miami project4, demonstrates his understanding of complex economic undertakings.

A comprehensive peace agreement would likely need to address:

• Reconstruction funding: Determining sources of funding for rebuilding Ukraine’s damaged infrastructure, potentially including U.S. aid, European assistance, and Russian reparations.
• Investment guarantees: Creating mechanisms to encourage private investment in reconstruction efforts by providing political risk insurance and other guarantees.
• Trade relationships: Restoring and potentially expanding trade relationships between Ukraine, Russia, and Western markets to support economic recovery.
• Energy security: Addressing the complex energy relationships in the region, particularly regarding natural gas transit through Ukraine and energy exports to European markets. 

Trump’s executive order on “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis”1 suggests his administration is focused on economic impacts of policy decisions, which could extend to considering the economic dimensions of a Ukraine peace agreement and its effects on global energy and commodity markets.

Military Considerations and Security Architecture

Any sustainable peace agreement will need to address military and security considerations, including:

• Force posture and demilitarized zones: Determining the positioning of military forces and potential establishment of demilitarized buffer zones.
• Arms limitations: Addressing weapons systems deployments in the region, particularly longer-range systems that could threaten either side.
• Security guarantees: Establishing credible security guarantees for Ukraine if it remains outside NATO.
• Monitoring and verification: Creating robust mechanisms to monitor compliance with military provisions of any agreement. 

Trump’s executive order titled “Clarifying the Military’s Role in Protecting the Territorial Integrity of the United States”1 demonstrates his willingness to define military responsibilities through executive action. While that order focuses on U.S. border security, it reflects an approach to using presidential authority to direct military priorities that could extend to how U.S. forces might support implementation of a Ukraine peace agreement.

Regional and Global Implications

Trump’s approach to resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict will have significant implications beyond the immediate parties to the dispute:

NATO and European Security

How Trump navigates the Russia-Ukraine conflict will fundamentally shape the future of NATO and European security architecture. If his approach is perceived as pressuring Ukraine to make concessions to Russia without adequate security guarantees, it could undermine confidence in U.S. security commitments among Eastern European NATO members. Conversely, if Trump achieves a durable peace that respects Ukrainian sovereignty while addressing legitimate Russian security concerns, it could establish a new framework for European security cooperation.

U.S.-Russia Relations

Trump has repeatedly emphasized his “very good relationship” with Putin2, suggesting he sees potential for improved U.S.-Russia relations as part of resolving the Ukraine conflict. However, fundamental differences in interests and values between the U.S. and Russia extend beyond Ukraine, including issues related to arms control, cyber operations, and human rights. The challenge for Trump will be determining which aspects of the relationship can be improved through diplomatic engagement without compromising core U.S. interests and values.

Global Economic Impact

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has contributed to global economic disruptions, particularly in energy and food markets. A resolution to the conflict could help stabilize these markets, potentially easing inflationary pressures that have affected economies worldwide. Trump’s executive order on “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis”1 indicates his administration’s focus on economic conditions, which could be improved through successful resolution of the conflict.

International Norms and Precedents

How the conflict is resolved will establish precedents regarding territorial integrity, the use of force in international relations, and the consequences of aggression. If Trump’s peace plan is perceived as rewarding Russian aggression, it could encourage similar actions by other powers. Conversely, a balanced agreement that upholds key principles of international law while acknowledging political realities could strengthen the rules-based international order.

Trump’s Unique Advantages in Negotiation

Despite the significant challenges, Trump brings certain unique advantages to the negotiation process:

Freedom from Conventional Diplomatic Constraints

Trump has demonstrated throughout his political career a willingness to break with conventional diplomatic approaches when he believes they’re ineffective. This freedom from traditional constraints could allow him to propose creative solutions that might not emerge from conventional diplomatic channels.

Leveraging Personal Relationships

Trump’s emphasis on his personal relationships with both Zelensky and Putin2 provides a channel for direct communication that bypasses bureaucratic processes. While personal diplomacy has limitations, it can sometimes achieve breakthroughs where institutional approaches have failed.

Unpredictability as Negotiating Leverage

Trump’s unpredictable approach to policy and willingness to take dramatic actions, such as the federal aid freeze3, creates uncertainty that can sometimes be leveraged in negotiations. Both Ukraine and Russia must consider the possibility of significant shifts in U.S. policy, potentially creating incentives to reach agreement rather than face unpredictable alternatives.

Business-Oriented Approach to Problem-Solving

Trump’s background in business deals like the Trump National Doral Miami development4 has instilled a results-oriented approach to problem-solving that focuses on achieving specific outcomes rather than perfect processes. This pragmatic orientation could help overcome ideological barriers to agreement.

Conclusion: Prospects for Peace Under Trump’s Leadership

President Trump has expressed confidence in his ability to bring the Russia-Ukraine war to a swift conclusion, based primarily on his personal relationships with the key leaders involved and his experience in high-stakes negotiations. While significant obstacles remain, Trump’s unique approach to diplomacy—combining personal engagement, economic leverage, and a focus on concrete results—offers a potential path forward different from previous efforts to resolve the conflict.

The effectiveness of Trump’s approach will depend on several factors:

• Balance of incentives and pressure: Finding the right combination of positive incentives and negative pressure to move both parties toward agreement.
• Flexibility within core principles: Maintaining flexibility on specific provisions while upholding core principles necessary for a sustainable peace. 
• Implementation mechanisms: Developing robust mechanisms for implementing and verifying compliance with agreement terms. 
• International coordination: Building sufficient international support to reinforce the agreement terms. 

Trump’s executive orders since taking office in January 2025 demonstrate his willingness to use presidential authority aggressively to implement his vision across multiple policy areas1. This decisive approach to governance could translate to his peace efforts, potentially creating momentum toward resolution where previous approaches have stalled.

At the same time, the federal aid freeze3 signals Trump’s readiness to reconsider established patterns of U.S. support, which could create both opportunities and challenges for peace negotiations. By introducing uncertainty about continued U.S. assistance, Trump may create incentives for both parties to reach agreement rather than rely on indefinite international support for a continuing conflict.

Trump’s meeting with Zelensky in September 2024 established common ground on the need to end the war, with Zelensky stating they shared a “common view that the war has to be stopped and Putin can’t win”2. This alignment on basic objectives provides a foundation for more detailed negotiations on specific terms.

Ultimately, the prospects for peace under Trump’s leadership will depend on his ability to translate his confidence and negotiation experience into concrete progress toward a sustainable agreement. While his unique approach offers potential advantages, the fundamental challenges of the conflict—deeply entrenched positions, complex security concerns, and divergent visions for the region’s future—remain formidable obstacles to lasting peace. Trump’s success will be measured not just by reaching an agreement but by establishing conditions for sustained stability and security in a region that has experienced too little of both in recent years.

References:

• Trump meets Zelensky and says it’s time to end Russia’s war

• Trump administration orders sweeping freeze of federal aid

• Donald Trump calls for ‘immediate’ ceasefire in Russia-Ukraine war after meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy

• Trump says Russia has released American hostage Marc Fogel

• American among 3 detainees released from Belarus