This December, journalists all over the world will look for the defining political meme of the year – and one contender for that unofficial title is Donald Trump’s claim that he has stopped eight wars. 

One must admit that any genuine acknowledgment of Trump’s contributions to global peace will hinge not on temporary ceasefires achieved by means of the White House’s influence over the conflicting parties, but rather on a lasting resolution of the most deep-seated crisis in European security – the Ukraine conflict. However, when it comes to Ukraine, the US finds itself constrained in its ability to influence the conflicting parties.

Unlike most other conflicts that the US president has had to deal with, the situation in Ukraine is not a small-scale military, economic, and geopolitical dispute. Rather, it is an epic conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with the latter receiving support from nearly the entire NATO bloc. Over the last year, attempts to resolve the conflict went through a familiar cycle: A prolonged silence, after which the White House managed to reach verbal consensus with the Kremlin; pushback from Kiev and its European partners resulting in the US taking more aggressive measures against Moscow; and yet another pause in negotiations.

This pattern first emerged when Russia and the US held preliminary consultations in Riyadh in February, which helped revive the stalled Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul. However, these talks faltered when Kiev ignored Russia’s memorandum. Later, the halted negotiations were used as convenient justification for the EU’s 19th package of sanctions and additional measures against Lukoil and Rosneft.

The situation repeated itself after the US-Russia summit in Anchorage, Alaska on August 15. Following a meeting at the White House on August 18 involving representatives from Ukraine, the UK, EU, NATO, France, Germany, Italy, and Finland, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and his European cheerleaders succeeded in swaying Donald Trump to their side. This shift later manifested itself in America’s unexpected statements regarding nuclear weapons which could impact overall strategic stability (i.e. the dialogue between Moscow and Washington on arms control).

It’s hardly surprising that the third attempt at dialogue – when, following the longest phone call between Putin and Trump on October 16, the White House announced a new summit between the leaders of the US and Russia in Budapest, Hungary – proved less fruitful than Trump, and the would-be host of the summit, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, had hoped. Orban faced formidable resistance from the EU, which even restricted access to its airspace for the Russian presidential plane.

Nevertheless, perhaps seeking to break free from the vicious cycle that Ukraine, the UK, and EU have entangled America in, or capitalizing on insights gleaned from Orban’s unexpected visit to Washington on November 7, Trump launched a political and diplomatic offensive. A major corruption scandal ignited in Ukraine involving Zelensky’s close associates – Timur Mindich, Rustem Umerov, and Andrey Yermak. At the same time, Trump unveiled his 28-point peace plan.

Reportedly crafted by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner following consultations with the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev – this framework agreement marks the first official document outlining the Trump administration’s stance on resolving the Ukraine conflict. It was a real bombshell for both Kiev and its European backers. Like any roadmap meant to reconcile conflicting positions, the text raises numerous questions.

For instance, it remains unclear how the US plans to address several contentious issues:

• What would the mechanism for US security guarantees (point 10) look like, and how long would those guarantees last if there were a change in administration in 2028?
• How would the implementation of the agreement (point 27) be monitored, and who would be on the ‘Peace Council’ besides Trump? 
• How would the territorial exchange (point 21) be facilitated, especially if Ukraine refuses to voluntarily relinquish control over parts of the Donetsk People’s Republic that are still under its control? 
• What specific projects would be funded with frozen Russian assets (point 14), given that Moscow’s inability to manage its taxpayers’ money could only be viewed as expropriation? 
• Under what conditions would Russia be reintegrated into the global economy, and from which sectors would sanctions be lifted first? And why is Moscow being invited to rejoin the G7 (point 13) when, for over ten years, it has not shown interest in membership?

At the same time, given the complexity of the transformation that the Trump administration underwent over the past year in its perception of Russia, it’s important to acknowledge the significant progress made by American diplomacy in addressing the root causes of the conflict. This is why proposals such as reducing Ukraine’s armed forces to 600,000 troops (point 6), preventing Ukraine from joining NATO (point 7), barring NATO troops from being stationed in Ukraine (point 8), establishing non-nuclear status for Kiev (point 18), and banning Nazi ideology while respecting the rights of Russian speakers (point 20) deserve attention.

It is hardly surprising that these ideas, which diverged sharply from the previously maximalist demands of the Collective West, sparked resistance from Ukraine and Washington’s junior allies. In the days following the authentication of the document on November 21, Ukrainian representatives and European emissaries requested negotiations, which took place in Geneva on November 23. True to form, the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ presented its own peace plan, which effectively undermined the US initiative.

Europe’s proposals include: Capping Ukraine’s military at 800,000 troops (down from the current 850,000); lifting sanctions gradually, not all at once; not stationing NATO troops in Ukraine during peacetime while leaving the door open for deployment during wartime; offering Ukraine security guarantees akin to NATO’s Article 5; resolving territorial issues along combat lines without formally recognizing the “realities on the ground.”

Russia has already dismissed the EU’s counterproposal as counterproductive, a point that its authors will leverage to pressure Washington into believing that Moscow is fundamentally unyielding, thereby prolonging the war “to the last Ukrainian soldier.”

Trump once again finds himself at a difficult crossroads, deciding between the path of peace or war: Either his peace initiatives will prove futile, leading to a resurgence of hostilities, or he will have to ‘wage war’ against Ukraine and the EU to achieve peace in Europe. By designating Thanksgiving as a deadline for Kiev’s acceptance of his plan, Trump and his team are operating under severe time constraints, influenced by a mix of internal factors (the advancement of Russian troops in the conflict zone) and external pressures (the looming threat of a new government shutdown, the situation in Venezuela, and worsening relations between China and Japan, among others).

What fundamentally distinguishes the conflict resolution process this time is the growing recognition on both sides of the Atlantic of an undeniable truth: As the situation on the battlefield deteriorates for Ukraine, Russia’s demands will become increasingly rigid and non-negotiable. Will Kiev manage to stop in time and minimize its losses, or will we witness yet another crisis for the Ukrainian state, a crisis which traditionally culminates towards the end of winter?