Following his victory in the 2024 presidential election, President-elect Donald Trump has made bold claims about his ability to swiftly end the Russia-Ukraine war — even promising a resolution within days of taking office on January 20. Such ambitious assertions resonate with American voters weary of protracted conflicts, but the reality of Trump’s approach to global diplomacy is far more complex, marked by sweeping promises but often lacking detailed strategy. Trump’s foreign policy is rooted in his “America First” doctrine, which prioritizes reducing U.S. involvement in foreign entanglements and urging allies to take more responsibility for their own defense. Throughout his campaign, he has repeatedly criticized the Biden administration’s substantial military and financial aid to Ukraine, arguing that it drains U.S. resources. Instead, Trump suggests that European countries, especially those geographically closer to the conflict, should shoulder more of the burden. This position is consistent with his broader vision of limiting U.S. foreign interventions unless they serve direct American interests. Yet, Trump’s claims of being able to broker peace in Ukraine within “24 hours” have raised eyebrows, particularly among foreign policy experts. In a May 2023 interview, he confidently declared, “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done — I’ll have that done in 24 hours.” However, beyond such aspirational statements, Trump has provided few concrete details on how to achieve this ambitious goal. His approach appears to rest on the assumption that his negotiating skills and personal rapport with global leaders, particularly authoritarian figures, can yield results that have eluded traditional diplomacy.
Trump’s admiration for leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, whose governing styles often challenge democratic norms, raises questions about how he might interact with Russia in a potential second term. Critics point out that Trump’s praise for Putin, whom he once called “a strong leader,” suggests a willingness to accommodate Russia’s interests, which could undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This raises concerns among NATO allies, who fear that a Trump-led administration might reduce support for Ukraine in favor of a quick, albeit fragile, settlement. On the campaign trail, Trump has also floated the idea that European nations, particularly Germany and France, should take the lead in resolving the conflict in Ukraine. This reflects his consistent belief that the U.S. has been overly generous in supporting allies who, in his view, do not contribute enough to their own defense. Trump’s critics argue that this approach could embolden Russia, signaling that the West is divided and reluctant to stand united against aggression. Adding complexity to Trump’s rhetoric is his relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a leader who maintains close ties with Putin. Trump has hinted at leveraging his rapport with Modi to potentially mediate between Russia and Ukraine. There are questions about whether Trump’s strategy involves using India, along with China, as potential negotiators in the conflict. Notably, Putin himself has suggested that countries like India and China could play a role in peace talks, which aligns with Trump’s vision of involving regional powers. However, critics question whether this approach would truly serve Ukraine’s interests or merely placate Russia.
Another critical issue is whether Trump could persuade NATO to halt Ukraine’s membership bid, a longstanding Russian demand. Trump’s previous criticism of NATO as being outdated and his insistence that allies pay more for their own defense raise concerns about his commitment to the alliance. If Trump were to advocate for sidelining Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, it could be seen as a concession to Russia, potentially weakening the West’s united front. In parallel, Trump’s foreign policy promises extend to the Middle East. He has pressured Israel to resolve its conflict with Hamas and has pushed for rapid, decisive action in the region. During his first term, Trump made several controversial, unilateral decisions, such as recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. His approach to the Israel-Gaza conflict has similarly raised eyebrows. Recently, top advisors in Trump’s circle, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, have suggested unconventional solutions, such as relocating Gaza’s civilians to the Negev desert. Such proposals, however, face criticism for disregarding international law and the complexities of regional politics. As Israel faces continued threats from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains determined to achieve his objectives, including the safe return of hostages. Trump’s promise of swift resolutions in both the Middle East and Ukraine seems to overlook the deep-seated, multifaceted nature of these conflicts. Ultimately, Trump’s claims of being able to deliver peace quickly — whether in Ukraine or the Middle East — are met with skepticism by foreign policy experts. His confidence may appeal to voters looking for strong, decisive leadership, but it’s unclear if such an approach can truly bring about lasting peace. Resolving the Russia-Ukraine war, in particular, would likely require nuanced diplomacy, multilateral engagement, and a genuine commitment to upholding international norms — not just bold rhetoric and quick deals. Whether Trump can turn his high-stakes promises into concrete results remains to be seen. As he prepares to take office, he will face mounting pressure to substantiate his claims with actionable strategies that go beyond campaign slogans. In the end, the world will be watching closely to see if Trump can truly deliver on his promise of a swift end to one of the most dangerous conflicts of our time.