United States President Donald Trump has never been one to shy away from grand declarations, but his latest pledge — to end the Russia-Ukraine war within 100 days if re-elected — ignited a firestorm of controversy. His dramatic clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyyy in the Oval Office at the White House has further escalated tensions, setting off a diplomatic earthquake with global repercussions.
In an extraordinary turn of events, what was expected to be a high-profile meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelenskyy ended in a spectacular breakdown. Mr. Trump reportedly told Mr. Zelenskyy to be “thankful” for American support, accusing him of “gambling with World War Three.” The atmosphere turned so hostile that a planned joint press conference was abruptly scrapped, and Mr. Zelenskyy was asked to leave the White House.
The fallout was immediate. Mr. Trump later remarked that Mr. Zelenskyy “can come back when he is ready for peace”, while the Ukrainian leader took to social media, rallying support from European allies. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, among other western leaders, reaffirmed unwavering support for Kyiv, making it clear that Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty is non-negotiable.
The dramatic breakdown of talks raises a critical question: Is Mr. Trump’s promise of peace a bold diplomatic manoeuvre? Or is it a reckless gamble that could alter the global order in ways that the world is not ready for?
The reality behind Trump’s bold promise
For more than two years, Ukraine has endured a brutal invasion that has devastated its cities, displaced the country’s millions and rewritten Europe’s security calculus. While Mr. Trump’s assertion that the war can be resolved within 100 days sounds appealing, it is grounded more in political rhetoric than diplomatic reality.
From a military standpoint, Ukraine’s resistance has been formidable, but Russia remains deeply entrenched in occupied territories. Moscow continues to wield military and economic resources to sustain its war effort, despite staggering human losses — over 4,30,000 casualties among Russian troops, according to western intelligence reports.
Mr. Trump’s previous claim — “I could end the war in 24 hours” — has only reinforced concerns that his approach is dangerously simplistic. Even his closest advisers have been vague on specifics. A retired lieutenant general, Keith Kellogg, a key Trump foreign policy aide, recently reiterated the 100-day timeline but failed to outline how exactly such a feat would be achieved.
Would Mr. Trump pressure Ukraine into territorial concessions? Would he engage in a behind-the-scenes bargain with Russian President Vladimir Putin? Or is this simply a campaign promise meant to appeal to war-weary American voters?
For Ukraine, any deal that forces a compromise on its sovereignty is a non-starter. Mr. Zelenskyy has repeatedly emphasised the point that peace must come on Ukraine’s terms — not as a concession to Russian aggression. The explosive Oval Office confrontation makes it clear: Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelenskyy are on a diplomatic collision course and the road ahead is fraught with peril.
The Trump-Putin connection
Complicating matters further is Mr. Trump’s undisclosed communication with Mr. Putin. Reports indicate that Mr. Trump had had a phone conversation with the Russian President earlier this year. When questioned about how often he speaks with Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump’s cryptic response — “It is better not to say” — has only fuelled suspicions.
For Kyiv and its European allies, this secrecy is deeply troubling. If Mr. Trump is negotiating directly with the Kremlin without Ukraine at the table, it raises serious concerns about whether Washington would sell out Kyiv in exchange for a hasty peace.
Moscow has remained tight-lipped, with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov neither confirming nor denying the call. However, analysts fear that Mr. Trump could strike a unilateral deal that favours Russian interests while undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The geopolitical implications of such a deal would be seismic. If Ukraine is forced into neutrality — a scenario Mr. Trump has hinted at — Russia would emerge from the war with strategic gains, setting a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. Moreover, China, Iran and North Korea would interpret such a move as proof that military aggression leads to political rewards.
The stakes for Ukraine’s survival
Despite mounting pressure, Mr. Zelenskyy remains steadfast. His latest remarks suggest that he will not bow to Mr. Trump’s demands for “concessions”. The Ukrainian leader has also revealed that discussions about Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth, which includes strategic resources such as titanium and uranium, have been raised in negotiations with Mr. Trump’s team.
The implication? Mr. Trump may be considering a trade-off: Ukraine’s economic assets in exchange for security guarantees. But for Kyiv, this is a dangerous path. A resource-for-security deal could leave Ukraine economically vulnerable, especially if Russia retains control over its mineral-rich eastern territories.
Mr. Zelenskyy’s stance is clear: Ukraine will not accept a deal that legitimises Russian occupation. His defiance has won him praise among European allies, but with Mr. Trump back in the White House, Ukraine’s ability to resist diplomatic pressure may be severely tested.
Can Mr. Trump walk the tightrope between Kyiv and Moscow? Mr. Trump faces an extraordinarily delicate balancing act. Ukraine demands total Russian withdrawal. It also wants North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership. Russia, on the other hand, insists on keeping its territorial gains and blocking Ukraine’s integration into western alliances.
A Trump-mediated deal that ignores Ukrainian demands could spell disaster. History has shown that neutrality without security guarantees is a recipe for future conflict. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing war in Donbas are stark reminders that Russia’s expansionist ambitions do not end with ceasefires. They are merely paused.
Mr. Trump’s aggressive stance towards Mr. Zelenskyy, along with his ambiguous relationship with Mr. Putin, suggests that he may be willing to cut a deal at Ukraine’s expense. If this happens, it could fracture the western alliance, embolden Russia, and set a precedent that territorial conquest can be legitimised through negotiation.
The cost of a bad peace deal
Beyond the immediate consequences for Ukraine, Mr. Trump’s handling of the conflict carries broader implications for global stability. If Russia is allowed to keep its territorial gains, China may view this as an opportunity to escalate its claims over Taiwan. Similarly, Iran and North Korea could feel emboldened to challenge international norms with greater aggression.
A rushed or poorly structured peace agreement could also trigger long-term economic consequences. Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction will require significant funding, and a settlement that does not hold Russia accountable for reparations could leave Kyiv financially crippled for decades.
The U.S., too, has a strategic interest in preventing Russian aggression from going unchecked. If Washington signals that it is willing to compromise on Ukraine, it could undermine its own credibility as a global power.
Trump’s defining test
As Mr. Trump positions himself as the architect of a new peace deal, the world is watching. His ability to navigate the complexities of the Russia-Ukraine war will define his legacy, not just as a former President but also as a leader who could reshape the geopolitical landscape.
Will he succeed in brokering a just peace that secures Ukraine’s sovereignty? Or will his aggressive diplomacy lead to greater instability, empowering authoritarian regimes and destabilising global security?
The stakes could not be higher. The next 100 days will determine not just the future of Ukraine but also the trajectory of international relations for years to come.
One thing is clear. Mr. Trump’s gamble on Ukraine is no ordinary political promise. It is a high-stakes manoeuvre that could either cement his place in history as a master negotiator, or go down as one of the greatest miscalculations of modern geopolitics.
Rakib Al Hasan is a physician, author, activist and international award-winning youth leader of Bangladesh. E-mail: md.rakibalhasan.bd@gmail.com
Published – March 01, 2025 02:10 pm IST
