Trump sends conflicting signals on peace in Ukraine

The peace plan for Ukraine that Donald Trump had repeatedly promised to implement on the first day of his presidency is finally starting to materialize. It includes some alarming statements that are causing many — in the United States, Europe, Ukraine, and among the Russian opposition — to lament America’s abandonment not only of Ukraine, but of its longtime position as the leader of the Free World. There are good reasons to view Trump’s proposals warily. But the signals are contradictory, and so far the predictions of doom are premature.

On the alarming side: Trump’s return to form in making friendly and laudatory comments about Vladimir Putin — comments that are especially bizarre when Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine is approaching the three-year mark. After a telephone conversation with the Kremlin dictator, Trump not only announced a plan to meet with him but repeatedly said that he thinks Putin "wants peace." Of course, it’s Putin who started the war and who could end it any time he wants.

Trump also suggested that Russia would get to keep some Ukrainian land. Asked whether Ukraine would be an equal partner in the peace process, he ambiguously replied that "they have to make peace" and that "this was a bad war to get into," seeming to imply that Ukraine either provoked the invasion or wrongly chose to resist it.

This is ugly stuff. It’s even worse coupled with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s declaration after a meeting in Brussels that it was "unrealistic" for Ukraine to return to its 2014 borders and that NATO membership — a deterrent to future Russian aggression — was not a "realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement."

Is the Trump administration prepared to throw Ukraine under the bus and reward Putin’s war of conquest?

Despite justified alarm, that’s a premature conclusion. Trump’s statements also included positive signals for Ukraine — such as the statement that the U.S. would continue sending aid because "if we didn’t do that, then Putin would say he won."

While Trump also said that he wanted U.S. aid "secured" through an agreement on access to Ukraine’s natural resources including rare minerals, it is worth noting that such a deal was originally pitched to Trump by Ukraine — and, if done right, could be a win for Kyiv. Aid aside, if the U.S. is involved in mineral extraction in Ukraine, it strengthens American incentives to prevent Russian attacks.

Meanwhile, Hegseth has walked back some of his controversial statements, saying that the question of NATO membership for Ukraine was ultimately up to the president. While Trump himself has expressed skepticism on the subject, it could still be a bargaining chip in any peace talks. Hegseth has stressed that European and non-European troops would guarantee Ukraine’s security.

There are also reports that Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy after the conversation with Putin was quite positive and that Trump even gave Zelenskyy a personal phone number to reach him.

What to make of all this? Despite claims that Trump is in Putin’s pocket, a far more likely explanation is that Trump is ruled by his own ego. He wants to be seen as the great peacemaker who ended a war started on Joe Biden’s watch. He may not care about Ukraine’s freedom, but he doesn’t want to preside over an American humiliation.

Zelenskyy and his government have been very canny in handling Trump and his ego. If they play their cards right, they could still win either an honorable peace or support in continuing a defensive war.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.