Trump can potentially put Ukraine conflict to halt but through the use of pessimist tone and pressure tactics. The deal-maker Trump’s manifestation of his art of deal seems not a peaceful reconciliation but takes a coercive manipulative approach towards Ukraine by suspending US military aid while shrinking space for Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal with Russia on its own favorable terms. His strategy for resolving wars revolve around a mix of hardline diplomacy, transactional negotiations and recalibration of U.S’ involvement in global conflicts. Unlike Biden administration, Trump is no more available for taking up the responsibility of financing the wars of its allies. This has been displayed through Trump’s recent action of suspension of aid toward Kyiv, irrespective of the costs to Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and security.

Trump’s foreign policy style has often been characterized by strong-arm tactics and used similar methods to push Kyiv toward peace talks with Russia. He has framed his approach as prioritizing the end of hostilities over territorial integrity, arguing that prolonged war harms both Ukraine and global stability. This may involve pressing Ukraine to accept territorial concessions in the eastern Donbas region, a move that would be highly controversial and opposed by both Ukraine and its Western allies.

Ending Ukraine conflict is Trump’s domestic political compulsion which he has to fulfil by all means. He reiterated many a times to end Russo-Ukraine war if he elects as President. He could justify his act of suspension military and financial aid to US’ old ally and NATO partner by arguing that it would be in the best interest of both Ukraine and the U.S. itself.  Under his leadership, Trump’s America first slogan and ideology precedes over everything else. Unlike President Biden, who has maintained a firm commitment to military and financial assistance for Ukraine, Trump has taken a different stance by halting US aid altogether. He justifies this move by arguing that U.S. taxpayer money should not be spent on foreign wars. The aftermaths of this objectionable action will cause Ukraine to face significant difficulties in maintaining its defensive capabilities against Russian advances, potentially forcing it into an unfavorable ceasefire. However, Ukrainian President Zelensky has also shown some signs of goofiness by showing willingness to territorial concessions and his resignation.

If Trump forces Ukraine into an unfavorable settlement, it may end active combat but leave the region unstable. This would resemble the Minsk agreements, which temporarily halted fighting in 2015 but ultimately failed to prevent war. A true resolution would require addressing the root causes of the conflict, ensuring Ukraine’s security and preventing future Russian aggression. Moreover, he pursued peace talks directly with Putin without involving Zelensky in critical discussions. This act of sidelining Zelensky would risk undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, effectively allowing major world powers to decide its fate without his input. However, that’s not the first time in a while, referring to Trump’s deal of the century for Israel and Gaza suggests that its Trump’s way of resolving conflicts to take weaker states’ opinion for granted and sidelining their leaders.

Russia’s continued aggression suggests that Putin may not be interested in a quick settlement unless it guarantees him significant territorial and strategic gains. Trump’s emphasis on his personal relationship with Putin has raised concerns that he may negotiate a peace deal that heavily favors Moscow. He has previously suggested lifting sanctions on Russia in exchange for a ceasefire and has signaled a willingness to offer incentives that could undermine Western efforts to deter Russian expansionism. His direct engagement with Putin, without consulting Ukraine, raises the likelihood of a settlement that weakens Ukraine’s territorial integrity and could impact US – west alliance.

Trump administration’s offensive tone and departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy attitude towards Kyiv reveals division of opinion between U.S. and its western allies. Trump has long criticized NATO and has suggested that European nations should take full responsibility for Ukraine’s defense. His actions and gestures suggest that he intends to reduce U.S. involvement in NATO-led efforts to support Kyiv, potentially leading European countries to seek a quick resolution to the war, even if it involves significant compromises. NATO members in Eastern Europe have strong security concerns regarding Russian expansionism. A Trump-led shift in U.S. policy could cause tensions between Washington and its European allies, potentially leading to a divided response to Russian aggression.

A peace deal that does not address the root causes of the war and Ukraine’s security concerns could lead to a “frozen conflict” scenario. Without clear security guarantees, Ukraine could face renewed aggression in the future, making Trump’s peace deal a temporary and unstable solution rather than a lasting resolution. Trump’s objectionable actions such as suspending aid to Ukraine, sidelining Zelensky as well as negotiating directly with Putin, raises serious concerns about whether his approach would bring real peace or simply force Ukraine into an unfavorable settlement.

Depending on his unpredictable foreign policy behavior, if his strategy results in a deal that weakens Ukraine’s sovereignty and emboldens Russia, it may end active fighting but leave the region vulnerable to future conflicts. Trump’s unorthodox and transactional diplomacy might create momentum for negotiations, while his claim that he can end the war “in 24 hours” remains an oversimplification. The conflict in Ukraine is not just a dispute between two leaders; it is a geopolitical struggle threatening national sovereignty, regional security and involves global power dynamics. In the light of current scenario. Trump’s approach may shift the course of the war but whether it leads to genuine stability or a dangerous compromise is the real question at hand.