“Before I even arrive at the oval office I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled and it will take me no longer than one day.” – Donald Trump at CPAC 2024.

While on the campaign trail, United States President Donald Trump made it his mission to end the ongoing war in Ukraine and establish peace in the region. It was unclear exactly how he would be able to do this, but potentially, with his experience of cooling down relations with North Korea to the point of being the first U.S. president to ever enter the country, or maybe his famous ability to ‘make a deal’, maybe he is the president that could end this war. 

Following Donald Trump’s election victory and subsequent inauguration, the world waited with bated breath, to see how this alleged peace would be executed. As one of this administration’s largest and promised soonest goals to reach, it would be a very important milestone, not entirely because he would be able to do it, but more importantly how he would be able to do it, as this situation would pose the perfect challenge for this administration to prove its new skills globally, and separate itself from the supposed dangers of the previous administration. 

The Trump administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine is a far cry not only to the previous Biden administration, but also to that of Europe. The first move of many, came on February 12 when the US president ended the three-year radio silence in communications between the United States and Russia since the start of the war. 

The phone call lasted 90 minutes and reportedly was “highly productive” according to Trump. Soon after, the president also made a call to ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. According to Trump, this call also went “very well.” 

A meeting between delegates from the United States and Russia was arranged six days later on the 18th to discuss economic relations between the countries along with a path to peace in Ukraine. A Russian spokesman at the meeting told United States Delegates that “the figure we are voicing for the first time now, is that American business has lost 300 billion by leaving the Russian mark.” 

Many including those in Europe and Ukraine (hell, even in the United States) were confused as to why, if this meeting was to discuss the end of the war in Ukraine, then why wasn’t Ukraine – or at the very least, anyone to stand in for Ukraine – invited?

President Trump at his Mar-A-Lago estate, was quick to respond to the question the same day the delegates were set to meet. “They’re upset about not having a seat, well they’ve had a seat for three years and a long time before that… Today I heard ‘well we weren’t invited’ well you’ve been there for three years you should’ve ended it. You should’ve never started it, you could’ve made a deal.” A bizarre choice of words. 

The president went on to make further comment on a video he had seen of Zelenskyy talking about how he didn’t know where 100 billion dollars in aid went. “He doesn’t know where half the money is that we gave him. We gave them- well, I believe 350 billion.” This statement is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. 

The United States has sent Ukraine 177 billion in aid so far. Ukraine has directly received 70 billion of this money. That 100 billion that Zelenskyy doesn’t know the whereabouts of – wasn’t ever intended to go to Ukraine. According to the Ukraine Oversight website, the rest of the money is intended for other nato allies and partner nations for the purpose of regional stability. Now wherever Trump got his 350 billion dollar mark? It’s hard to say, but I’m just gonna throw it out there that he’s lying about it.

Trump made further comments calling the Ukrainian president’s legitimacy into question by calling him “A dictator, without elections.” on his Truth Social account. The president then doubled down on his comments at the FII priority summit Miami. The statement is a half truth at best. Though the Ukrainian government did not hold elections in may of 2024 due to the ongoing war, a sentiment that the majority of Ukrainians agree with, according to a survey conducted by the Ukrainian Kyiv National Institute of Sociology. 

Ukraine would also have to run a gauntlet of logistical hurdles in order to carry out these elections, as 6.8 million fled the country due to war time, and another three million are currently in Russian occupied territory.

The UN General Assembly met on Feb. 24 for the third anniversary of Ukraine. During the meeting the United States voted alongside Russia against the European resolution. The European resolution detailed the extent of which the Russian Federation has caused devastating, and long lasting consequences towards global stability, explaining that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal, and deplored the humanitarian consequences of the aggression (among other things.)  

Instead, the United States drafted its own resolution. The short document mournes the tragic loss of life in the Russian-Federation-Ukraine conflict, reiterates that the purpose of the United Nations is intended to maintain international peace, and implores a swift end to the conflict. The absolute lack of any mention of Russian aggression turned a lot of heads that day. 

France had something to say about it though, and rewrote parts of it, from “Russian-Federation-Ukraine conflict,” to “Full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.” France then went on to add a line that affirms Ukrainian independence and sovereignty over its internationally recognized borders.

Russia also tried adding its own line at the end of the United States line which urges a swift end to the conflict: “Including by addressing its root causes” though it ended up getting voted out. The United States ended up abstaining from the proposed resolution as it had diverged too far from its original intent.

But all of that is just relations, what do Russia and Ukraine think of peace?

Both Ukraine and Russia have opposing beliefs of what they desire for peace to be established. Ukraine has been very vocal of their desire to return to its pre-2014 borders. (in 2014 Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea which has been under Russian control ever since.) 

Zelenskyy has made it very clear that Ukraine desires to either join NATO, or have United States forces be stationed in Ukraine to act as peacekeepers because he believes that only under these conditions would Russia never invade again.

The idea of peace without strong military forces to back it up has been considered a pointless endeavor by many because despite Putin signing Peace agreements on numerous occasions, he has broken them over and over again. Zelenskyy also went as far as to state that he would be willing to resign as president if either Ukraine joined NATO or if Peace in the country was established.

The United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has called the Ukrainian desires for its pre-2014 borders an “unrealistic objective” that will “only prolong the war” during the opening remarks at the Ukraine Defense meeting on Feb. 12. 

Hegseth’s own words run counter to existing NATO doctrine. Per article five of the NATO alliance: “If a NATO member is attacked it will be considered an attack against all NATO members.

Hegseth went on to say that “The United States does not believe a NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-european troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as a non-NATO mission, and that they should not be covered by article five. To be clear as part of any security guarantee there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.”

Russia has stated that any European troops deployed to Ukraine to maintain peace would be considered an act of war. Russia also believes that all Ukrainian territory that it occupies is its own. Russia’s desires are more focused on profit than peace: profit in this case being in the form of Ukraine’s minerals.

Ukraine has access to a lot of rare earth minerals that they have yet to set up the infrastructure to mine, minerals of which the UNited States doesn’t have ready access to in its own country. The United States sent over a proposal to Ukraine on Feb. 19. The proposal asked Ukraine to pay the United States 500 billion dollars for its previously provided aid.

That’s it. Unsurprisingly, Zelenskyy refused the deal outright, before retracting the refusal shortly after. A few days later on Feb. 23 the United States sent over a new minerals deal, which would create an economic partnership between the two countries in a fund called the “Reconstruction Investment Fund.” 

Both governments would manage the fund based on their own investments, and would reinvest the money into (but not limited to) infrastructure for mineral mining and reinvesting the funds annually into “Ukraine to promote the safety, security, and prosperity of Ukraine.” 

Ukraine would donate 50 percent of its future monetary gains from natural resources into the fund and the U.S. would give “further contributions [which] may be comprised of funds, financial instruments and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine.” When it comes to ownership of the fund, the document states “Joint ownership will take into consideration the actual contributions of the participants… the maximum percentage of ownership of the funds equity and financial interests to be held by the government of the United States of America, and the decision making authority of the representative of the government of the united states of america will to the extent permissible under applicable law.” 

What does this all mean? I’ve been wondering the same thing and still can’t fully wrap my brain around it. There wasn’t any solidified promise of anything. The United States could invest or it could not if it becomes inconvenient for themselves to do so. For the Ukranians who have been fighting for their sovereignty for the past three years, it’s far from desirable.

But it’s a start, and Zelenskyy flew out to the White House to discuss the deal with President Trump on Feb. 28, leading to the cacophony of anti-decorum that we can expect from this administration. The Zelenskyy visit will be the topic of part II of this article, so stay tuned.