��������Ƶ

During a presidential debate in Philadelphia last September with Vice President Kamala Harris, Donald Trump made a bold prediction about Ukraine. In response to a question from the moderator, Trump said: “That is a war that’s dying to be settled. I will get it settled before I even become president.” He also frequently claimed that he could end the war within 24 hours of entering the Oval Office.
However, since winning the presidential election in early November, Trump has changed his tone quite a bit on the issue of Ukraine. He even acknowledged that the situation is more complex and harder than he had originally thought, suggesting it could be even more difficult than brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
While speaking to the press in the Oval Office on the evening of Jan. 20, the first day of his second term, Trump was asked if he could still meet his one-day deadline to bring the war to an end. He joked with journalists that he still had “half a day” left to achieve this.
It is clear that much of what Trump said over the past year was purely for the campaign trail. It is likely he never truly believed he could end the war quickly, and the conflict would have to be taken seriously,  a point underscored by the people he has appointed to work on this issue. While in other government departments, such as the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI, Trump has selected unconventional and unorthodox leaders, he has chosen more traditional and orthodox appointees for his national security adviser, secretary of state, and special envoy for Ukraine and Russia.
When it comes to Ukraine, two themes have already emerged from the second Trump administration. First, there is a recognition that resolving Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will take far longer than many around Trump expected. This has been made clear through public statements by senior Trump appointees, and by Trump’s directive giving his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general, 100 days to find a solution to the war.
Second, and more surprisingly, Trump and his appointees have been more instinctively sympathetic to Ukraine’s position in the conflict. This has come as a surprise to many, especially given the perception that some vocal Trump supporters in the media have parroted Kremlin talking points about Ukraine. Kellogg has publicly supported the continuation of military aid to Kyiv. Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, said during his confirmation hearing: “We know who the aggressor is. We know who the good guy is. We’d like to see (the resolution of the war be) as advantageous for the Ukrainians as possible.” Robert Wilkie, head of Trump’s Pentagon transition team, told the BBC in a recent interview that the president will tell Putin to stop the war in Ukraine or “we’ll give Zelensky everything he needs.” 

Zelensky has worked tirelessly on the global stage.

Luke Coffey

Trump himself has also placed significant blame on Moscow. In a message to the Kremlin posted on social media this week, he said: “I’m going to do Russia, whose economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big favor. Settle now, and stop this ridiculous war.” He demanded that Russia agree to a deal to end the conflict, suggesting that Moscow was the primary obstacle to progress. After threatening further economic sanctions and tariffs targeting Russia, Trump said: “We can do it the easy way, or the hard way — and the easy way is always better.”
This ultimatum from the US president to his Russian counterpart has placed Moscow in a difficult position. Some commentators and Russian media outlets have already expressed regret that Joe Biden is no longer in the White House. Meanwhile, while the situation remains dire for Ukraine on the front lines, there are reasons for optimism. President Volodymyr Zelensky has played his political cards well. While it was fashionable for Western leaders to criticize Trump over the summer, Zelensky continued to engage with Trump’s inner circle, securing a key meeting in late September in New York. Within 24 hours of Trump’s election victory, the two leaders spoke by phone. On a personal level, the two seem to get along well.
Also, six months after their audacious intervention into Russia’s Kursk region, the Ukrainians have successfully repelled multiple Russian counterattacks, some involving soldiers from North Korea. Kyiv’s ability to hold territory inside Russia provides valuable leverage for any future negotiations.
Zelensky has worked tirelessly on the international stage, particularly with countries from the Global South, to craft a fair and just peace plan. Multiple Ukrainian-led peace summits have been held in locations such as ��������Ƶ, Malta, and Switzerland, with participation from dozens of nations. Meanwhile, Russia has struggled to secure meaningful support or consensus at international forums, including the recent BRICS summit in Kazan. Ukrainian diplomacy is paying off, framing the groundwork for potential future talks.
So, what comes next? There is no denying that Trump is sincere in his desire to end the war. The big question is how he will achieve this. Although US foreign aid has been suspended for 90 days pending further review by the new administration, it has been clarified that this does not apply to military aid for Ukraine. Open-source intelligence indicates that US cargo planes, presumably filled with aid for Ukraine, have landed at a Polish airfield near the Ukrainian border. For now, Trump has adopted a position of arming Ukraine, while pressuring Russia.
Ultimately, Trump aims to appear competent and strong on the global stage. He understands that any resolution to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that leaves Ukraine weaker or more vulnerable will be seen as a Russian victory and an American defeat.
One week into the Trump administration, there is cause for cautious optimism on Ukraine. So far, so good.

• Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
X: @LukeDCoffey