Despite President Donald J. Trump’s previously ambitious claims of ending the Ukraine-Russia conflict in a day, the conflict is far from reaching an end very soon. After assuming office and delving into the intricate realities of the conflict, President Trump and his advisors have already admitted that achieving a peace deal might take months. Despite his bold claims and promises, the conflict remains deeply entrenched, marred by strategic mistrust, historical grievances, and uncompromising positions from both Ukraine and Russia. It is to be explored whether President Trump’s approach — marked by pressure tactics and high-stakes diplomacy — can navigate the complex geopolitical realities of the region in the current scenario or if his approach will collide with the region’s hard realities.

Russia embarked on a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The conflict is credited as the biggest in Europe since WWII, claiming thousands of lives and creating a massive refugee crisis in numbers of millions. The United States has long backed Ukraine in the war and is the top aid provider to Ukrainian forces. Since the eruption of full-scale war, a massive number of sanctions have been imposed on Russia to cripple the Russian economy; a move which did not prove to be much effective. Now, with his return to the White House, President Trump kickstarted the process of negotiations by exerting pressure on President Vladimir Putin. He warned Russia to end this “ridiculous war” or face the threat of further sanctions. Moreover, President Trump believes that this deal—if negotiated—presents a great opportunity for him as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite Mr. Trump’s vast business experience and previously ambitious term of presidency, owing to the existing complex dynamics, the war in Ukraine is not as easy to end as it is to close a business deal. The existing mistrust between the warring parties, Putin’s skepticism of American intentions, and the overly-ambitious stance of President Zelensky make it a case that requires a lot more than just ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots’.

The mistrust between both countries is owed to a prolonged direct and indirect conflict since Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Both Countries signed a series of agreements referred to as the “Minsk Agreements” which entailed a vast number of collective decisions regarding the demilitarization of the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) and Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), provision of special status to LPR and DPR by Ukraine, restoration of Ukraine’s full control over its borders, development of social and economic ties between the two states and many others. The agreements were defied by both sides on several occasions as Russia went on with multiple ceasefire violations, refused Ukraine complete control over its borders, and held elections in separatist regions without Ukraine’s oversight. Similarly, Ukraine never intended to and hence failed to implement special status for LPR and DPR, delayed in granting amnesty to separatist fractions, and continued military presence along the conflict zone where it was supposed to withdraw heavy weapons. The continuous violations from both sides and Russia’s declaration of independence in conflicted regions, followed by a war, instilled huge trust deficits between the two countries further hindering the peace process.

Additionally, the United States’ role during and before the conflict has built up skepticism in Moscow, indicating that Russia does not appreciate American interventionism in the region. The first and most important factor that contributed to this skepticism is the US’ intent to integrate Ukraine as a member of NATO, which was perceived by Russia as a severe threat to its sphere of influence. The U.S. strongly backed Ukraine’s inclination towards the West after 2014’s Maidan Revolution and Moscow is strongly of the view that the U.S. is behind all these color revolutions overthrowing pro-Russian governments in Georgia and Ukraine. Secondly, since the eruption of the war, American actions whether in terms of severe economic sanctions on Russia or in terms of providing Ukraine with 175 billion dollars of military aid in terms of weapons, technology, training, and intelligence, prolonged the war rather than seeking peace. All these factors contributed to Putin’s skepticism of Washington’s intentions and the role it has played or seeks to play in the context of the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Both sides have claims of the upper hand in the war but in the light of an objective analysis, it is clear that the territories seized by Russia can not be taken back by Ukrainian forces; an idea which is strongly rejected by President Zelensky. Throughout this war, President Zelensky reiterated that peace could only be achieved if Russia agreed to his non-negotiable terms. The first term is Russia’s withdrawal from all occupied territories including Cirmea, LPR, DPR, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, something that Putin will never agree on, making a diplomatic solution almost impossible. Secondly, President Zelensky has demanded war crimes tribunals for Russian leaders including President Putin which will never accepted by Russia. Thirdly, Zelensky insists on Ukraine’s right to join NATO, an action which was previously considered one of the reasons for instigating Russia to invade. All these terms put forward by the Ukrainian president depict a rigid approach that can be interpreted as ‘overly ambitious’ as Ukraine’s only chance of winning is relying on foreign military aid, a well that is close to going dry.

President Trump has to keep these intricacies in mind while proposing anything to both sides to reach any agreement. The need of the time is to devise a comprehensive peace deal that presents equitable incentives for both Russia and Ukraine. Moreover, the adaptation of coercive means of diplomacy would never play in favor of the West and Ukraine as Russia has seen itself through already enacted severe sanctions and surprisingly managed to keep its economy intact. The need of the hour is to do whatever it takes to achieve sustainable peace in the region via the employment of properly researched diplomatic means.