Ukraine Conflict: Political Optics a Priority in Trump’s Peace Diplomacy Mission

Isabel Bramsen, Isak Svensson and Peter Wallensteen

United States (US) President Donald Trump has initiated an attempt to negotiate a peace deal in the over three-year-old war between Russia and Ukraine—an effort that is unfolding at an astonishing speed.

During his election campaign, Trump and his team vowed that he would bring peace within 24 hours and force Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table.

Yet the whirlwind of events over the past few weeks has caught most observers off guard. Since taking office as president on January 20, 2025, Trump has launched a chaotic, spectacular, and unpredictable “peace show” that does not follow the traditional diplomatic playbook.

Using a mix of carrots and sticks, he is attempting to coerce Ukraine into negotiations while making almost daily provocative statements about the war. Most recently, on March 19th, Ukraine and Russia agreed to a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire limited to energy infrastructure; to exchange prisoners of war; and to establish a negotiating team for further discussions on a broader agreement.

How should we assess Trump’s peace diplomacy? And what can Europe and Ukraine do to position themselves strategically in the diplomatic battle over Ukraine’s and Europe’s future?

To understand the current policy, we looked at the origins and outcomes of previous “peace negotiations” under Trump’s leadership. What was revealed is a pattern of unconventional and in many ways problematic approaches to international negotiations.

Trump’s Approach to Peace Diplomacy

Trump’s peace diplomacy is very different from earlier efforts. The US president has outlined a solution that largely favours Russia, front-loading premises that include Ukraine ceding territory—territory that Russia has seized in breach of the United Nations Charter and violation of the international norm against the acquisition of territory by force. Additionally, the proposal deems Ukrainian membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) unrealistic and suggests the US should begin normalizing ties with Russia not as an outcome of the peace talks, but beforehand.

Moreover, Trump’s approach to peace diplomacy differs significantly from traditional Western negotiation strategies in that it is far more focused on personal relationships and isolated events and is taking place at an extremely fast tempo.

Based on his previous and current presidency, we argue that Trump’s peace diplomacy is characterized by seven key traits.

1. Mediation with muscles

Peace researchers distinguish between pure mediation and mediation with muscles[1], and there is no doubt that Trump is practising the latter. Trump has repeatedly employed threats, economic leverage, and military posturing to force adversaries to negotiate on his terms.

This is visible, for example, in how Trump suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine to pressure it to accept a 30-day ceasefire.

While strong-arm tactics may bring parties to the negotiating table, coerced agreements tend to be fragile. The risk is that any agreement reached under Trump’s heavy-handed mediation could be short-lived, particularly if Ukraine is forced to make concessions that leave it vulnerable to future Russian aggression.

Hence, it is critical that the European Union (EU) and other actors make an effort to strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiation table.

2. An openness to outlying actors

It is also apparent that Trump will not hesitate to engage with parties that have traditionally been excluded from Washington’s diplomatic circles. He sees negotiations as transactions where ideological and historical barriers are secondary.

During his first term, he sought dialogue with pariah actors such as the Taliban and North Korea and isolated states such as Russia. Now, in 2025, he is engaging in direct talks with Hamas, and with Vladimir Putin in Ukraine.

This approach could be constructive given that an openness to facing enemies directly can have a transformative effect on peace talks. However, for diplomacy to produce a just and lasting peace, it is critical that such face-to-face engagement with villainous actors does not imply a compromise of essential principles of security, international law, and fairness.

3. Impatience and a preference for quick results

Unlike traditional diplomatic processes, which often stretch over years and involve gaining considerable knowledge about the parties and their basic interests, Trump seeks rapid resolutions that can be presented as successes at home, often pointing out the potential economic gains for the US.

In his first term, this impatience often led Trump to ignore key issues because they would have taken time to resolve. In 2020, he hyped a “Deal of the Century” to end the Israel-Palestine conflict, but its one-sidedness made the Palestinians reject it as a starting point for negotiations. Trump then moved forward without seeking a solution to the conflict.

Instead, he pursued the Abraham Accords in 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries in the region without addressing the core issue—the state formation conflict between Israel and Palestine—while hoping for major economic investments for US corporations.

Similar patterns can be seen in his negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the Doha Accord, the US reached an agreement with the Taliban that Afghanistan could not be used as a base for attacks against the United States.

Other goals that had long justified the US presence in Afghanistan, such as rebuilding the country, improving the position of women, and laying the foundations for democratic development, were abandoned. This deal has been criticized for effectively paving the way for the Taliban’s take-over following the US withdrawal.

Similarly, the US-brokered 2020 agreement between Kosovo and Serbia sought to normalize relations between the two countries without addressing the core issue of Serbia’s recognition of Kosovo. Instead, it focused on economic issues and secured Kosovo’s recognition of Israel.

This impatience is now evident in Trump’s approach to Ukraine. His preference for a quick deal over a long-term diplomatic process raises concerns that he will pressure Ukraine into concessions that allow the US to disengage swiftly (or get access to mineral riches)—regardless of the long-term consequences for Ukrainian or European security.

4. Exclusion of key conflict parties

Trump has a history of negotiating with powerful actors while excluding directly affected parties.

In Afghanistan, this meant that the US excluded the democratically elected government in Kabul from its talks with the Taliban. Likewise, the Palestinians were excluded from the Abraham Accords, which were bilateral agreements between Israel and separate Arab states.

The US-allied Syrian Kurds were also excluded from the 2019 agreement between the US and Turkey on a ceasefire in northern Syria. This approach can produce quick agreements, but these agreements risk legitimacy issues and sustainability because key actors do not feel bound by them.

We now see the same approach in Ukraine. By calling Putin before contacting Volodymyr Zelensky and meeting with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia before engaging with Ukraine, Trump has sought to bypass the previously accepted principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”

Most peace talks involve shuttle diplomacy, so it is not inherently problematic that US diplomats meet with Russian diplomats and Ukrainian diplomats separately without inviting the other. However, the symbolism of who is informed first and who is addressed first is highly important to avoid the impression that conversations are being held over Ukraine’s head.

This week’s talks held in Saudi Arabia, where US envoys met with Ukraine on March 23rd and Russia on March 24th, are a step in the right direction. Yet, there are no clear indications that any European or EU countries will be invited to key negotiations about Ukraine’s future—something that is deeply disconcerting from a European perspective.

Sidelining the European parties will likely undermine any deal a comprehensive agreement would include, such as the lifting of sanctions, the provision of peacekeeping, and expensive efforts of reconstruction.

5. Preemptive concessions with little in return

Trump often portrays himself as a highly skilled dealmaker, but in many cases, he has given up some of his most significant bargaining chips without receiving substantial concessions in return.

In Afghanistan, he gave the Taliban what they had fought for since the American intervention—the withdrawal of US troops—early in the process.

In talks with North Korea in 2018 and 2019, he granted Kim Jong Un the international recognition he longed for, not as a result of negotiations but merely as a way to open up further discussions.

We now see this pattern repeating. Trump gave Putin international recognition and conceded two of his key demands—that Ukraine cannot join NATO and that Russia doesn’t have to withdraw from occupied territories—without Putin having to make any concessions.

There is a possibility that this “carrot” approach is part of a strategy to lure Putin into negotiations with symbolic gifts that can be withdrawn in case of noncompliance or used to nudge Russia to give up territory. Whether this is the strategy or not, Ukraine and European countries can try to pull the US in this direction and make sure that these symbolic gifts lead to Russian concessions.

6. Public spectacles

Trump’s approach to peace diplomacy is also characterized by public spectacle. Confidentiality is a critical part of peace negotiations given their sensitive nature and the potential for media attention to undermine a party’s willingness to compromise.

Parties generally express their maximalist goals in public, while potential concessions that have not been matched with a reciprocal concession from the opponent are kept confidential to prevent counterreactions that could harm the process if they were widely known.

Hence, peace talks are generally conducted out of the public eye. For example, when the US brokered the Dayton Agreement that ended the war in Bosnia in 1995, US negotiators used a hardball approach to pressure the parties into an agreement, but they deliberately did this while hidden from media attention on a US military base.

By contrast, Trump’s peace diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine have been highly mediatized, not least with the spectacularly tense meeting in the Oval Office ending with Trump stating “This is gonna be great television, I will say that.” Likewise, the most recent calls between first Trump and Putin and then Trump and Zelensky were conducted under the media spotlight, with contradicting statements about what had been discussed.

This follows a broader pattern in Trump’s diplomacy, where public performance often overshadows substantive negotiations. For instance, his 2018 and 2019 summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un were highly choreographed media events, following the same “script” as the historic meeting between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong Un the previous year.

While the meeting involved photo ops, public attention, and heightened expectations, it produced no concrete progress on denuclearization. Such publicized, high-profile engagements can create an illusion of diplomatic success while leaving critical issues unresolved.

In contrast, effective peace negotiations often require confidentiality, backchannel diplomacy, and careful groundwork to ensure genuine progress.

7. Lack of clarity on what is being agreed upon

Finally, there tends to be a lot of confusion as to what was agreed upon in Trump’s peace efforts. While constructive ambiguity can be a useful and often necessary approach to striking deals that can cut across different understandings[2] of, for example, territorial ownership, it is highly problematic if the lack of clarity around the agreements inhibits their implementation.

During Trump’s previous presidency, his 2018 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un produced a broadly worded declaration on denuclearization that lacked specifics on verification, timelines, and enforcement.

This vagueness led to stalled negotiations and differing interpretations of what commitments were made.

Likewise, in Trump’s current engagements with Putin and Zelensky on a potential 30-day ceasefire, core elements remain unclear. Did Putin agree to a ceasefire involving attacks on both energy and civil infrastructure, or only energy infrastructure? When is or was the deal supposed to come into effect? And who should be monitoring or sanctioning the parties if they breach the deal?

Clarity on the fundamentals of what, who, and when is absolutely critical for any agreement to be robust and implementable, particularly in highly tense situations. There is a need for greater involvement from actors with the experience and capacity to establish a more coherent and solid framework for further negotiations.

Challenges for Trump’s Peace Diplomacy

Ukrainian and European leaders have expressed deep concern that the US may sideline them in negotiations, emphasizing that any peace process must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. It is part of Trump’s style not to raise issues of principle and international law.

Instead, the transactional approach seems to dominate, precluding consistency and predictability, and ultimately making the goal of a peace process uncertain.

For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. The biggest challenge is securing strong security guarantees. Agreeing to a ceasefire without solid guarantees could leave Ukraine in a precarious situation, vulnerable to renewed Russian aggression.

One possible middle ground would be the deployment of European peacekeeping forces to monitor a ceasefire, creating an indirect security guarantee—particularly if the US commits to stepping in as a backstop should hostilities resume.

As the US pushes for a deal, Europe must take a proactive role to ensure that any peace agreement does not come at the expense of Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity. This could involve appointing a special EU representative to participate in negotiations and ensuring European interests are adequately represented. Strong contributions to potential peacekeeping forces and robust security guarantees for Ukraine would be essential in this process.

Peace diplomacy is a long and complex endeavour. One of the greatest challenges in this situation is that Trump’s peace diplomacy prioritizes political optics over durable solutions. Trump wants a fast deal, but it is critical that pace is not prioritized at the expense of a comprehensive framework for peace talks, solid ceasefire monitoring, and long-term solutions.

The coming months will be crucial for Ukraine and Europe. How they navigate Trump’s diplomatic manoeuvres will determine the shape of any future peace settlement.

While Trump seeks to define his version of peace, it remains critical that Ukraine and Europe do not allow themselves to be sidelined in this high-stakes and existential situation.

Isabel Bramsen is an Associate Professor and Director of Peace and Conflict Studies at Lund University and a Mediator at the Center for Conflict Resolution. Isak Svensson is Dag Hammarskjold Professor in peace and conflict research at Uppsala University. Peter Wallensteen is a Senior Professor at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University.

[1] Mediation is a voluntary process in which the parties retain control over the outcome (pure mediation), although it is sometimes combined with positive and negative inducements (Mediation with muscles). (Ramsbotham et al. 2011)

[2] Strömbom, L., Bramsen, I., & Stein, A. L. (2022). Agonistic peace agreements? Analytical tools and dilemmas. Review of International Studies, 48(4), 689-704.

* This article was originally published in https://theglobalobservatory.org/

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.