Donald Trump has no moral stature to broker peace — in Ukraine or in Gaza

When Donald Trump returned to the White House for a second term, he came back with a mission: to end the Russia–Ukraine war quickly and claim credit as the world’s greatest dealmaker.

Armed with bravado and a deeply rooted belief in transactional politics, Trump believed he could strong-arm adversaries into peace, just as he had once promised to do with North Korea, Iran and .

But like many of his past forays into international diplomacy, Trump’s approach to the war in Ukraine has collided head-on with geopolitical reality.

Trump’s leaked ‘100-day peace plan’ illustrates a plan as ambitious as it is flawed. It outlines a ceasefire by 20 April, recognition of Russian sovereignty over occupied Ukrainian territories and a withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Russia’s Kursk region.

🚨 REVEALED: Donald Trump demands higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at Versailles

The Telegraph has obtained a draft of the pre-decisional contract, marked “Privileged & Confidential’ and dated Feb 7 2025

Read the terms ⬇️https://t.co/xxRPfrm8rE pic.twitter.com/vPUUWN8csK

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) February 17, 2025

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy initially rejected the proposal, but after heavy pressure from the White House, he agreed to explore a limited, time-bound ceasefire.

Trump, convinced of his diplomatic prowess, then expected an equally quick acquiescence from Russian president Vladimir Putin. But Putin, unlike Zelenskyy, saw no reason to play along.

Russia’s current battlefield advantage, especially in the east, provides Moscow with increasing leverage.

Putin is in no rush. He believes Ukraine, fatigued, battered and without American weapons, will eventually have no option but to agree to Russia’s terms.

Trump, having promised quick results, is now lashing out — threatening secondary tariffs on Russian oil and criticising both Kyiv and Moscow.

This entire sequence of events reveals Trump’s fundamental misreading of the situation. Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are not a real -estate deal or a televised handshake agreement.

They are embedded in deep-rooted historical grievances, power struggles and existential fears. Trump’s approach lacks the strategic patience, multilateral support and moral clarity required to navigate such a crisis.

Instead of building consensus with allies or involving multilateral institutions, Trump has opted to sideline the , marginalise and pressure Ukraine into concessions. According to his defence secretary , NATO membership for Ukraine is now deemed “unrealistic” and Ukrainian neutrality is expected.

These developments suggest that the Trump administration is leaning toward a settlement that prioritises expediency over ideology and ethics.

The benefits of delay are increasingly skewed in Russia’s favour. With every week that negotiations stall, Russia gains ground — literally and diplomatically.

On the battlefield, Russian troops dig in, disrupt Ukrainian infrastructure and keep Ukrainian forces stretched thin.

Politically, Russia gains leverage as the US appears divided and Europe remains frustrated by being relegated to the sidelines.

The Trump administration has not only allowed this to happen but may be enabling it by design.

Trump’s failed attempt in the final days of his first term to broker a deal between and Ethiopia over the Nile River should have been a warning. Then, as now, Trump overestimated his leverage and underestimated the complexity of regional politics. The result was diplomatic embarrassment.

Now, he risks repeating that mistake on a far larger stage, with far more devastating consequences.

Worse, Trump’s demands are increasingly transactional, blending diplomacy with personal interest. He recently expressed frustration with Zelenskyy over , warning of “big, big problems” if Ukraine sought to renegotiate. This blend of foreign policy and commercial interest undermines the credibility of the US as a neutral broker.

Zelenskyy, for his part, has made it clear that any agreement that endangers Ukraine’s EU aspirations or leaves the country defenceless is unacceptable.

Putin, meanwhile, is playing the long game. He understands Trump’s impatience, sees his inconsistent threats for what they are and recognises that delay benefits him.

Trump’s threat of secondary tariffs — aimed at buyers like and China — may unsettle markets, but it is unlikely to pressure the Kremlin. Moscow has already adapted to years of Western sanctions and global demand for oil gives it alternative buyers.

There is also the issue of legitimacy.

Trump’s wavering stance on Zelenskyy’s authority — calling him a “dictator without elections” one month and defending his legitimacy the next — plays into Putin’s narrative and undermines Ukraine’s political stability.

As Putin proposes a transitional government in Kyiv, Trump’s inconsistency makes it harder for Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength.

The bigger question is whether this delay is accidental or strategic. Trump’s eagerness to declare victory in peace talks, coupled with policy shifts that tilt toward Russian interests, raises the possibility that a slow-walked deal might serve his political ends.

If Ukraine is pressured into an unfavourable settlement under US direction, Trump can claim success while avoiding the long-term burden of aid and engagement. That, however, would come at the cost of Ukraine’s interests, Zelenskyy’s political future and Europe’s credibility.

Trump has said he wants to be remembered as a peacemaker, but peace without perceived justice, fairness and sustainability is merely a pause before the next war.

The current delays benefit one country alone: Russia.

Every postponed meeting, every weakened Ukrainian position, every signal of disunity from the West helps Putin consolidate gains. Trump’s actions, intentional or not, risk handing Moscow the geopolitical advantage it has long sought.

As the Easter deadline for a ceasefire looms, it remains unclear whether Trump will follow through on his threats or pivot again. What is certain, however, is that diplomacy is not performance art. It is a craft that demands patience, integrity and a deep understanding of the stakes involved.

In the end, Trump may still declare that he brought peace to Ukraine. But history will measure whether he ended a war or merely sided with the victorious aggressor.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. More of his writing may be read