Today's Edition
Mariam Mohamed AlJneibi
The writer is a researcher at TRENDS Research & Advisory
At the beginning of US President Donald Trump’s second term in January 2025, he claimed that he could “end the Ukraine war in 24 hours”. This bold claim has raised some questions about whether he will be able to succeed in bringing peace to Europe or simply freeze the conflict for an indefinite period.
As of October 2025, further levels of complication are added because of emerging threats, changed attitudes, and stalling discussions. In a recent interview, President Trump stated that his “24 hours” comment was a little bit sarcastic. But is it too far from reality?
Trump’s approach seems to focus on freezing the war such that Ukraine would regain some of its lost territories but hand over control of the others, such as the wide-open fields of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, often referred to as the Donbas. Additionally, Ukraine would give up control over two other regions, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
When it comes to Trump’s supporters, this proposal is a representation of pragmatic reality since it puts an end to the risk of escalation and expenditure that never stops. Those who are opposed to this plan argue that it gives an excuse for aggression and that it undermines international law.
In Washington, Trump has met with several opposing groups from Congress, the Pentagon, and other institutions of foreign policy. If a ceasefire is reached, the actual implementation would require high measures, such as security guarantees and humanitarian aid, in the absence of which, any deal might easily revert to conflict.
There are similar examples in history, and frozen wars, ranging from Georgia to Crimea, might resurface with even more intensity.
There are serious challenges that stand in the way of real peace. As far as Ukraine’s concerns go, maintaining authority, identity, and existence are at the top of the list.
As for Russia, influence and historical resentment are two of the biggest factors that play into the war.
In between lies Europe, always on guard, divided between those who advocate for further discussion and those who fear that agreements will boost Moscow’s confidence in seizing more villages.
However, it is important to note that Trump’s attempt does not completely lack opportunities. The war between Moscow and Kyiv has drained economies and split alliances, and it has left the whole world on edge. At the very least, a ceasefire that prioritises humanitarian aid might put an end to the ongoing extreme distress.
While Ukrainian President Zelensky has repeatedly insisted that his country must not lose its authority and that peace cannot be achieved at the expense of losing the independence of the nation, recent reports show that he describes Trump’s proposal to freeze the frontlines as a “good compromise”.
In order to achieve lasting peace, it takes more than just strong statements from influential leaders. It necessitates the acceptance of shared responsibility, verification of agreements, and a willingness to prioritise justice above expediency.
Only then will this conflict come to an end and become a historical archive.
The question of whether Trump is capable of really achieving these goals remains unanswered. There is a possibility that his self-assurance as a dealmaker may assist in resuming communication, but diplomacy is not a transaction; rather, it is a test of patience, credibility, and compromise.
