US President Donald Trump is not one to mince words, but his warnings to Russia and Ukraine, growing more serious and meaner by the day, carry a tone of urgency. And while we are being assured that the US President is a “great guy” and could be “on his way to the Nobel Peace Prize” (as his Secretary of State Marco Rubio said) for his peace efforts in Ukraine, it’s not that simple.

Advertisment

Trump has much to gain if he can broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

In the past few months, his administration has accelerated efforts to negotiate a ceasefire, whether through talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, or by meetings between U.S. and Ukrainian delegations in Riyadh. It’s an all-hands-on-deck situation that raises a key question: Why?

Why does Trump want to end the war in Ukraine?

Advertisment

It’s definitely not for peace. As a businessman who prides himself on mastering the “art of the deal”, doing something for nothing in return is simply not his style.

During his re-election campaign, Trump claimed he would “have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled” even before he arrives in the Oval Office. He repeated that promise later, saying, “If I’m president-elect, I’ll get it done before even becoming president.”

Things are different now. He is the 47th President of the United States, yet the war is nowhere close to ending. Russian attacks have escalated. Perhaps the dealmaker from New York City thought it would be easy, only to realise it’s much harder than expected. That hasn’t deterred him—if anything, he’s trying even harder. But again, why?

Advertisment

In Trump’s mind, it’s the perfect move. He has spent years branding himself as the ultimate dealmaker, a man who can walk into a room, slap an agreement on the table, and force world leaders to fall in line. Whether the deals themselves hold up to scrutiny has never been the point. Ending the Ukraine war would be the ultimate validation of his image, proof (he would argue) that his leadership alone can solve problems that others and NATO could not.

The optics would be even better if he could do it within the first 100 days of his presidency. This period is crucial for setting an administration’s tone, when presidents push their biggest policies, capitalise on momentum, and build their legacy. Historically, some of the biggest moves in US politics have occurred in this window. The first 100 days define how history remembers a president’s term. They serve as a report card, and every administration seeks early high-profile victories. Franklin D. Roosevelt launched the New Deal. Ronald Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts. Barack Obama passed an economic stimulus package after the Great Recession.

If Trump forces Ukraine into a quick deal (that may mean surrendering territory to Russia), he gets a massive talking point. He’ll frame himself as the man who cut through globalist bureaucracy and fixed what other leaders couldn’t.

But this will come at a cost and it is Ukraine that would be forced to pay the price. There is no scenario in which Trump brokers a fair and lasting peace. He has said so himself, “Ukraine will have to compromise.”

Trump’s rhetoric provides all the clues necessary to predict what his version of an “end” to the war would look like. He has repeatedly vowed to cut off aid to Ukraine and even did so temporarily until U.S. and Ukrainian delegations negotiated in Riyadh.

He knows “aid” is leverage, cutting it off would leave Ukraine militarily crippled, with little choice but to negotiate on Russian terms. The result would be an imposed settlement in which Ukraine is expected to cede territory, something Putin has demanded as a non-negotiable condition for a ceasefire. Trump would claim victory, but the reality would be concession.

Yet for Trump, the immediate rewards would be enormous. Trump would present his “peace deal” as an America First decision, no more taxpayer money wasted on a “foreign war.” To the world, he would posture as a leader so formidable before whom even Putin backed down.

Of course, Putin would not have backed down at all. He would have won, securing Ukrainian land without further resistance and strengthening his strategic position in Europe.

NATO would be humiliated and in a weaker position than it already is. European nations would be left questioning whether the United States remains a reliable ally at all, something they have started wondering after Trump’s Vice President JD Vance’s eye-opening speech at the Munich Security Conference.

Trump, unconcerned with the long-term consequences, would move on, basking in the temporary glow of his self-proclaimed win.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)