The Trump-Zelensky meeting took place as the U.S. president faces a shaky record in both domestic and foreign policy at the close of 2025. Failures to deliver on economic promises, the collapse of immigration policies, and a sharp decline in economic popularity have pushed Trump toward instrumentalizing foreign affairs. Internationally, growing distance from traditional U.S. allies, warnings from analysts like John Mearsheimer about the decline of Washington’s global standing, and the failure of purported peace initiatives have left Trump’s position fragile. From Gaza to Iran’s nuclear dossier, from costly confrontations with China to setbacks in Venezuela and Syria, none of these efforts have produced lasting achievements. In this context, Ukraine has become a tool to fill the gaps in Trump’s political record—a propaganda instrument for New Year speeches rather than a strategic plan for peace.
Strategic Ambiguity in Trump’s Words and Actions
Following the meeting with Zelensky, Trump sought to portray himself as the sole arbiter of peace, sidelining the Ukrainian president. His insistence that no agreement could proceed without his personal approval reflects a self-centered, narcissistic approach to diplomacy. At the same time, through verbal flexibility and promises of security guarantees, he attempts to project an image of imminent peace to the public, even while acknowledging that no deadline for an agreement exists. This contradiction becomes more pronounced as, alongside claims of peace, the U.S. allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to arm Ukraine within its $900bn military budget, while large-scale arms sales to NATO continue. This behavioral duality renders Trump’s claimed peace devoid of strategic sincerity or enforceable guarantees.
Zelensky, Moscow, and the Deadlock on the Ground
On the other side, Zelensky continues to use patriotic posturing as a tool for political survival. He conditions any withdrawal on reciprocal action by Russia, the creation of demilitarized zones, and clear security guarantees from the West, even invoking the presence of European troops. Plans for a referendum on Russian-controlled territories are a belated attempt to legitimize decisions that were made without public consultation at the war’s outset. Russia, relying on its gains on the ground, is unwilling to make substantial concessions. While appearing to engage with U.S. proposals to feed Trump’s ego, Moscow explicitly emphasizes achieving its objectives through force. Putin’s warnings indicate that the Kremlin defines peace not at the negotiating table, but through a balance of power on the ground.
Europe: The Overlooked but Decisive Factor
The third corner of this equation is Europe, which has borne the heavy financial and security costs of the war while suffering from Trump’s strategic disregard within U.S. national security policies. France, Germany, the U.K., and the EU openly stress the need for strong security guarantees for Ukraine and view hasty peace as contrary to their interests. Ongoing meetings, diplomatic contacts, and European financial and military support indicate that the continent will not participate in Trump’s theatrical and unreliable peace plan. A year of inconsistent U.S. presidential behavior—from arming Israel amid a Gaza ceasefire to ignoring allies—has left European trust at a minimum. Under these conditions, the three main actors in the Ukraine conflict are effectively outside the scope of Trump’s peace calculations.