Donald Trump has long claimed that if he returns to the White House, he can end the war in Ukraine with striking speed. Early in his 2024 campaign, he said he would settle the conflict “within 24 hours” of taking office.
Over time, he repeated this pledge at rallies, in interviews, and during debates, emphasizing that he had a “very easy negotiation” in mind—though he steadfastly refused to reveal specifics, arguing that disclosing details too soon would spoil the deal.
He framed this quick resolution in human terms, pointing out the toll on both Russians and Ukrainians. He pledged to bring Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the negotiating table almost immediately if re-elected.
On several occasions, Trump insisted he wouldn’t even wait for Inauguration Day to begin peace talks: once he became president-elect, he’d start pressing for a deal.
As late as 2024, he continued to double down on the notion that he alone could secure peace rapidly, highlighting the “respect” he believes he commands from both Moscow and Kyiv. He presented himself as the figure best able to apply pressure, thanks to personal rapport with Putin and Zelenskyy.
In debates, he contrasted his style of engagement with that of President Biden, whom he suggested lacks influence over both leaders.
Inside Trump’s peace strategy
Trump’s public comments indicate that he envisions high-pressure deal-making and personal diplomacy as central to ending the conflict. He has often described bringing Putin and Zelenskyy together for a swift settlement: one powerful summit or phone call in which he would act as mediator-in-chief.
Key themes include:
-
Immediate Leader-to-Leader Engagement
Trump emphasizes the importance of quickly calling or meeting both Putin and Zelenskyy. He casts this direct approach as capable of jump-starting talks that others have found elusive. -
Leverage Through Respect and Pressure
He believes that both men “respect” him personally, which he would use as leverage to push for a settlement. He has said he would also threaten to ramp up aid to Ukraine if Russia refused to compromise, and suggest reduced support for Ukraine if Zelenskyy did not negotiate. This classic high-stakes bargaining—from simultaneously dangling rewards to issuing tough ultimatums—reveals how Trump sees diplomacy through the lens of “The Art of the Deal.” -
A “Very Easy” but Secret Formula
Trump has consistently implied there is a straightforward solution—one so sensitive he must keep it under wraps lest it become unworkable if disclosed. This tease of a “secret sauce” plays into Trump’s showman persona, suggesting the simplicity of the deal is obvious to him but remains undisclosed to the public.
Another factor he highlights is the role of European allies. Trump has often said Europe must assume more financial and military responsibility for the conflict and that the United States shouldn’t be footing most of the bill.
This hints that his strategy might involve pressuring Europe to take on a greater share of peacekeeping or reconstruction duties, while the U.S. offers either bigger sticks or bigger carrots depending on each side’s willingness to compromise.
A break from past U.S. policy
Trump’s proposed approach diverges sharply from the Biden administration’s. Under President Biden and other Western leaders, the principle has been to back Ukraine fully, recognizing Ukraine’s right to dictate the terms of any settlement. U.S. policy has centered on supplying weapons and aid “for as long as it takes” to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Trump, however, suggests that continuing to fund Ukraine indefinitely prolongs the war. By moving the U.S. away from unconditional support, Trump would attempt to treat Ukraine and Russia more even-handedly, essentially becoming a “neutral broker” rather than Ukraine’s strongest backer.
Critics argue that this approach rewards Russia’s aggression and undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty. But Trump views it as necessary to stop the bloodshed quickly.
One of the largest divergences involves territorial concessions. Biden’s stance has been that no real peace can exist without Russia withdrawing from occupied regions. Trump, by contrast, has hinted at allowing some Russian gains to remain, particularly in Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.
He’s also indicated openness to blocking Ukraine from joining NATO if it means ending the war—granting a key Russian demand that most Western leaders have strongly resisted.
Furthermore, he and some of his advisors have proposed using U.S. aid as a bargaining chip—freezing it unless Ukraine agrees to negotiations, but promising to ramp it up if Russia cheats on a ceasefire. From Trump’s perspective, linking American military assistance directly to progress in peace talks could compel both sides to the table more effectively than Biden’s blanket assurances to Ukraine.
Confidence and concerns
Unsurprisingly, Trump’s “settle it in 24 hours” vow has stirred both support and skepticism. Many of his followers view him as a tough negotiator who can succeed where conventional diplomacy fails. Critics question whether his self-confidence overlooks the complexities of the war, such as deep-rooted Russian interests in Ukraine and Ukraine’s refusal to give up territory.
In March 2025, speaking as president, Trump acknowledged that his 24-hour pledge was “a little bit sarcastic” but still insisted he could bring a quick end to the war. This admission shows he recognizes the vow was more rhetorical flourish than literal timeline. Nevertheless, he continues to believe that if anyone can force a deal, it’s him.
When pressed on what he would do if either Putin or Zelenskyy defied him, Trump responded with generalities about “bad news” for the world if they don’t make peace. The assumption is that both leaders, when faced with his brand of deal-making pressure, would yield rather than escalate.
If Zelenskyy balks, Trump would presumably threaten to withhold aid; if Putin refuses, Trump would threaten more aid for Kyiv. In his view, that seesaw of pressure is the surefire way to break the stalemate.
“The art of the deal” diplomacy
Ultimately, Trump’s approach reflects a core element of his worldview: decisive leadership can cut through red tape, and the personal power of a single negotiator is the primary catalyst for sweeping change. He suggests that wars can be resolved in the same way business deals are struck—through brash ambition, personal rapport, and willingness to push all parties to compromise.
Supporters say it could represent a much-needed jolt to a conflict many fear could drag on indefinitely. Detractors warn that such an approach might ignore deeper historical and geopolitical factors, risking a fragile settlement that legitimizes Russia’s land grabs or leaves Ukraine vulnerable.
Still, Trump’s promise to “stop the dying” stands at the heart of his pitch: no matter how unorthodox the approach, he insists it will end the human suffering. To him, the war is “dying to be settled,” and the missing ingredient is strong leadership.
Whether such a bold one-day promise is sheer campaign flair or a workable blueprint remains to be seen. For now, it is a defining part of Trump’s platform—a headline-grabbing assurance that he alone can bring a swift conclusion to a war that has rattled global politics.
Whatever the ultimate feasibility, he has transformed “ending the war in a day” from a brash soundbite into one of the most talked-about claims in his political repertoire. And he shows no signs of backing off this belief that he, through sheer force of will, can close the deal everyone else has failed to make.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.