President Trump talks to both Russian and Ukrainian Presidents on Russia-Ukraine conflict

U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to the Ukraine war has raised alarm among foreign policy experts and European allies, as he seeks a swift resolution to the ongoing conflict. Trump, known for his book The Art of the Deal, made headlines this week after separately speaking with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, signaling the start of U.S.-led discussions aimed at ending the war.

Trump’s push for negotiations comes at a pivotal moment, just as U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told military allies in Brussels that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders—before Russia annexed Crimea—was unrealistic. Hegseth also stated that NATO membership for Ukraine should not be part of the solution and ruled out any U.S. troops being involved in Ukraine’s security. These comments have been interpreted as a significant concession to Russia’s demands and have sparked reactions from across the political spectrum.

Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, questioned the logic behind the Trump administration’s strategy, particularly the early concessions made to Moscow. “You never give up anything to them for free,” McFaul wrote on social media, expressing concern over the loss of U.S. leverage ahead of negotiations. Russia’s demands include territorial concessions from Ukraine and a pledge of permanent neutrality, while Kyiv insists on Russia’s full withdrawal and NATO membership.

Trump’s comments are seen as signaling a shift in U.S. policy. While previous administrations, including that of President Joe Biden, have staunchly supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity and NATO aspirations, Trump’s remarks seem to suggest a more flexible stance. Critics argue that such positions could embolden Russia and send the wrong message about the consequences of military aggression.

Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis voiced concern over what he perceived as the abandonment of Ukraine, particularly with the looming Munich Security Conference. Meanwhile, Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, framed Hegseth’s remarks as a “concession to reality,” potentially paving the way for a more achievable settlement with Russia.

The timing of these developments coincided with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s visit to Kyiv, where discussions centered on a potential minerals deal between the U.S. and Ukraine, aimed at providing post-war security. This deal could be a key part of Trump’s strategy, offering Ukraine financial support in exchange for U.S. access to its mineral resources.

Despite the complexities, experts warn that rushing into a deal on unequal terms could set a dangerous precedent, reinforcing the notion that military aggression pays off. As the situation unfolds, many remain cautious about the long-term implications of Trump’s diplomatic overtures and the potential weakening of U.S. influence in the region.