Donald Trump’s much-anticipated phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin did little to change the course of the war in Ukraine. Despite pre-call hype about Trump’s “force of personality” potentially pushing Putin toward peace, the two-hour conversation instead highlighted a continued stalemate. Rather than signaling a diplomatic breakthrough, the call raised doubts about Trump’s willingness to engage seriously in resolving the conflict.
Ukraine and its European allies are advocating a 30-day ceasefire to begin meaningful peace negotiations. However, Russia dismissed this proposal, preferring final-deal talks even as active offensives continue. Trump, after speaking with Putin, signaled alignment with Russia’s approach by suggesting that only Ukraine and Russia should now handle ceasefire discussions—effectively sidelining the broader international coalition supporting Ukraine.
Trump’s Weak Commitment Fuels Kremlin Confidence and Raises Doubts About U.S. Strategy
Trump’s post-call remarks reflected a lack of clear commitment. When asked about the U.S. role, he implied a willingness to back away from the peace process if no progress occurred, echoing Vice President JD Vance’s earlier hints. Though such posturing is a familiar negotiating tactic, it seems to reflect a genuine hesitancy to engage deeply, especially given the administration’s resistance to providing further aid to Ukraine.
Trump-Putin Call Yields No Progress as U.S. Influence Wanes and Kremlin Gains ConfidenceInstead of leveraging U.S. power through increased sanctions or military aid, Trump floated vague alternatives such as involving the Vatican and the new Pope Leo in talks. Critics noted this lacks substance and risks minimizing American influence. Analysts, including Beth Sanner, expressed concern that Trump’s call achieved little beyond granting Putin favorable optics, with no real pressure applied to change Russia’s position.
The Russian government appeared pleased with the outcome, describing the lengthy call as cordial and mutually engaging. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov highlighted that neither leader was eager to end the conversation, suggesting a rapport that alarmed Trump critics. Russian satisfaction, combined with Trump’s soft stance, has intensified fears that the U.S. president is inadvertently enabling Putin’s war goals.
Zelensky Challenges Trump’s Approach as U.S. Foreign Policy Wavers and Putin Gains Ground
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, aware of the need to maintain good relations with Washington, responded diplomatically but firmly. After briefing with European leaders, he stressed the necessity of continued U.S. involvement and tougher sanctions against Russia. Zelensky contradicted Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine and Russia could handle negotiations alone, warning that such a retreat benefits only the Kremlin.
Trump’s actions on Ukraine reflect a wider inconsistency in his foreign policy. While he touts peacemaking as a central goal, his track record is uneven. Recent escalations in Gaza and lackluster involvement in resolving tensions in Kashmir suggest a declining U.S. influence. His quick-fix approach stands in contrast to the long-term strategies typically needed for enduring peace in complex regional conflicts.
Despite Trump’s professed belief that Putin wants peace, the Russian leader continues to demand unacceptable conditions, including political subjugation of Ukraine. Trump has previously questioned Putin’s sincerity but now appears to be conceding ground. As a result, critics argue that Trump may be more passive than persuasive, raising concerns about whether he’s truly being outmaneuvered—or simply uninterested in a deeper commitment to peace.