Donald Trump positions himself as a peacemaker and mediator in settling the war between Ukraine and Russia. His attempts to broker a deal have been met with sharp criticism from both American and European politicians and experts.
The debate frequently highlights historical parallels, particularly with the Korean War, when diplomatic efforts masked other intentions and dragged the conflict out for years. Chinese leader Mao Zedong expected significant American casualties to strengthen China’s position, showing how peace talks can serve hidden goals.
Despite millions of victims, the Korean border barely changed after the armistice. In Ukraine’s present situation, experts compare Trump’s efforts to advocate ceasefire deals that align with Moscow’s demands, such as territorial concessions by Ukraine, raising concerns that this approach reflects Kremlin interests rather than Ukraine’s.
The inconsistency in Trump’s actions is particularly criticized: he alternately threatens sanctions and backs away from them, while negotiations seem more like political theater than well-prepared diplomacy. Former adviser John Bolton notes that Trump’s stance appears chaotic and is not leading towards real resolution.
Experts stress that true peace is possible only when hostilities are entirely stopped and humanitarian issues are gradually addressed, not through political deals that benefit only one side.
The article also examines why part of Russian society is not interested in ending the war—due to new economic and political benefits under the ongoing conflict.
