Last September, during a meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky in New York, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump expressed a strong belief that he could swiftly bring an end to the ongoing war in Ukraine. “If we win, I think we’re going to get it resolved very quickly,” he stated confidently.
However, the timeline for achieving such a resolution has shifted since then. Just days before the meeting, Trump had pledged in a televised debate that he would “get it settled before I even become president.” This assertion marked a notable escalation from his earlier commitment in May 2023, where he envisioned halting the fighting within the first 24 hours of his presidency.
Now, more than two months into his tenure, it appears that the reality of the situation is beginning to dawn on the White House. Ending a conflict as intricate and entrenched as this one may require significantly more time than initially anticipated. In a recent television interview, Trump acknowledged that when he claimed he could end the war in a day, he was “being a little bit sarcastic.”
Factors impeding a swift resolution
There are several reasons contributing to the slower-than-expected progress in negotiations. Primarily, Trump’s faith in the effectiveness of personal diplomacy may have been overly optimistic. He has long maintained that one-on-one discussions can resolve international disputes. His initial conversation with Vladimir Putin on February 12, where he described the dialogue as “highly productive,” set a precedent for his expectations. However, subsequent calls, including one on March 18, failed to yield the immediate 30-day ceasefire Trump desired. The only significant concession from Putin was a promise to cease attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which Ukraine accused him of violating within hours.
Furthermore, Putin has demonstrated a clear unwillingness to expedite the process. His first public commentary on negotiations came a month after his call with Trump, during which he explicitly rejected the U.S. proposal for a two-stage strategy focusing on a temporary ceasefire before discussing a more enduring resolution. Instead, Putin insisted that any negotiations must address what he considers the underlying causes of the conflict, primarily his concerns over NATO expansion and Ukraine’s status as a sovereign nation posing a security threat to Russia.
Complexity of negotiations and shifting priorities
The complexity of the conflict further complicates the path to peace. Ukraine initially proposed a temporary ceasefire limited to air and sea operations, which would be easier to monitor. However, during talks in Jeddah, the U.S. pushed for a ceasefire that encompassed the extensive 1200km-long front line in the eastern region, complicating verification logistics and leading to its rejection by Putin.
Even Putin’s agreement to halt attacks on energy infrastructure introduces its own challenges. Technical negotiations, slated to take place in Saudi Arabia, will focus on identifying specific power plants that require protection and delineating which weapons systems should be off-limits. The ambiguity surrounding the distinction between energy and other civilian infrastructure means that establishing clear agreements will take time, especially given that Ukraine and Russia are not directly negotiating but rather communicating separately with the U.S.
Additionally, the U.S.’s emphasis on the economic benefits of a ceasefire has diverted attention from the pressing need to end hostilities. Trump has sought to establish a framework that grants U.S. companies access to Ukraine’s critical mineral resources, raising questions about whether this represents an investment in Ukraine’s future or an attempt to exploit its natural assets. Initially, President Zelensky insisted that any agreement must include security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression. However, the White House countered that the presence of American firms would suffice as a deterrent. Ultimately, Zelensky was compelled to concede, agreeing to a minerals deal without security assurances, yet the U.S. has not finalized this agreement, likely seeking better terms that could include access to Ukrainian nuclear facilities.
The path to ending a war is often fraught with challenges and complexities. While Trump’s efforts have advanced discussions, the anticipated quick resolution has proven to be far more intricate than he originally believed. Reflecting on past statements, Zelensky once remarked during his presidential campaign that negotiations with Putin could be straightforward: “What do you want, what are your conditions?” However, the developments over the past two months suggest that achieving peace may be considerably more complicated.