Key Points – The recent (May 19th) phone call between President Trump and Vladimir Putin, along with talk of imminent peace negotiations for Ukraine, is largely theatrical posturing rather than a substantive breakthrough.
-Despite optimistic statements, there is no ceasefire, no deal, and no real concessions from either Russia or Ukraine, whose positions remain irreconcilable regarding territory and sovereignty.
-European leaders are also skeptical, viewing the initiative as a potential feint.
-True peace requires acknowledging hard realities—including Russia’s current strength and Ukraine’s potentially unachievable maximalist war aims—and necessitates painful compromises, not performative diplomacy or a simple handshake.
Trump Has a Ukraine War He Can’t Seem to Solve
Donald Trump is back in the geopolitical spotlight, and true to form, he’s making waves. Monday’s surprise phone call between Trump and Vladimir Putin has triggered a frenzy of diplomatic posturing that looks, at first glance, like the first real movement toward peace in Ukraine in over three years. The headlines are breathless: “Talks to End the War Begin,” “Trump Breaks the Ice,” “Putin Ready to Deal.” And indeed, the choreography is impressive. Moscow and Kyiv have, on paper, agreed to explore the terms of a ceasefire. Trump declared negotiations would begin “immediately,” while Putin spoke of drafting a “memorandum” that could lay the groundwork for a future settlement.
But scratch beneath the surface, and the whole affair reeks of theatricality. There’s no ceasefire. No deal. No real concession. Only posturing—strategic ambiguity dressed up as peacemaking. And for all Trump’s bombast, the ground reality hasn’t changed: Russian troops still occupy swathes of Ukrainian territory, missiles still fall on Ukrainian cities, and neither side appears ready to concede what would be necessary for real peace. This is not diplomacy; it’s choreography. And we’ve seen this dance before.
The Trump-Putin phone call is vintage Trump: a flash of improvisational statecraft wrapped in maximalist claims. For Trump, this is a show of dominance—a narrative pivot where he, not Biden, not NATO, becomes the man who could end Europe’s worst war since 1945. This is also an implicit rebuke of the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy, which Trump has long derided as reckless and escalation prone. But Trump’s style of diplomacy—transactional, theatrical, often devoid of institutional grounding—is precisely what makes it fragile. In this case, the lack of structure is glaring. There’s no timeline. No common framework. No mutually agreed venue. And the Kremlin, characteristically cautious, has refused to commit to any firm deadline. Instead, Russia continues to shape the tempo of this new “peace process” while keeping its options—and its guns—on the table.
Trump’s declaration that an “END to the War” is on the horizon has already been undermined by the facts on the ground. Nothing has changed militarily. If anything, the war’s tempo may now intensify as both sides seek to improve their bargaining position before any real negotiation begins. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, ever the wartime communicator, reacted with understandable caution. Rather than embracing the idea of a bilateral U.S.-Russia deal—one that would sideline Ukrainian sovereignty—he proposed a broader, multilateral format. Kyiv wants mediation that includes both the EU and the United States, and it has floated neutral venues such as Turkey or even the Vatican.
This is not just about optics. Zelensky knows the trap. A bilateral Trump-Putin process could easily devolve into a 21st-century Yalta, where great powers carve up Ukraine in the name of peace. For Zelensky, any negotiation that doesn’t begin with the principle of Ukrainian territorial integrity is a non-starter. And with Russian troops still dug in across large swaths of Ukrainian territory, that’s exactly the kind of concession Moscow would demand in any Trump-mediated deal.
Europe, too, smells a rat. Germany’s Friedrich Merz—now the de facto leader of European foreign policy—responded not with celebration, but with sanctions. The message is clear: Europe sees this move not as a breakthrough but as a potential feint. One that could fracture the West, erode support for Ukraine, and create a new frozen conflict under Russian terms. For all the headlines, nothing about this moment should surprise us. This is what happens when grand strategy gives way to performance. Trump’s phone call fits squarely within a pattern we’ve seen before—from Singapore to Helsinki, from Doha to Mar-a-Lago. His approach is not grounded in realism or restraint. It is rooted in impulse, image, and the desire to dominate the news cycle.
That might work in reality TV. It doesn’t work in protracted interstate war. Clausewitz reminds us that war is the continuation of politics by other means—not a stage for theatrical improvisation. Peace, if it comes, must emerge from the logic of war itself: the clash of opposing wills, the attrition of resources, the recalibration of interests. Thucydides, writing in the shadow of Athenian hubris and Spartan calculation, knew well that diplomacy untethered from power is little more than fantasy. And Machiavelli, for all his cynicism, understood that durable peace depends not on pageantry, but on the cold calculus of necessity.
There is, of course, a way to end the war in Ukraine. But it will require hard power, painful concessions, and a clear-eyed understanding of interests. That means recognizing that Putin is not negotiating from a position of weakness. It also means admitting that Kyiv’s war aims—however morally justified—may exceed what is militarily or diplomatically achievable. That’s the tragic heart of war, and no amount of phone calls or proclamations will change it. What’s needed is not a show, but a strategy. Not a performance, but a policy.
If Trump is serious about ending the war—and not simply scoring points—he must develop a framework that balances three realities: the limits of American power, the enduring interests of Russia, and the survival of Ukraine. That’s a tall order. But it begins with acknowledging that the United States cannot impose a solution. It can only shape the environment in which a negotiated end becomes possible. This is where the doctrine of restraint offers a path forward.
Restraint does not mean capitulation. It does not mean appeasing Putin or abandoning Ukraine. It means avoiding maximalist illusions on both sides. It means aligning means and ends, resisting the temptations of moral absolutism, and crafting a peace that may be ugly, but durable.
And yes, it may mean that Ukraine does not recover every inch of its pre-2014 territory. That is not justice—but it may be the price of peace. This is the tragedy of geopolitics. And unlike Trump’s theatrics, it demands seriousness, subtlety, and sobriety.
In the coming weeks, the Trump-Putin ceasefire initiative will either collapse under the weight of its own vagueness or evolve into something more substantive. For now, the former seems more likely. There is too much bluster, too little ballast. But even if this gambit fails, it tells us something about the world we now inhabit. We are entering an era not of clarity, but of chaos—where diplomacy and spectacle blur, and the old certainties of alliance, deterrence, and order are constantly in flux. Trump is not the cause of this condition. He is its most flamboyant symptom.
And so, we watch this new diplomatic drama unfold. A phone call, a promise, a press release—followed by the grinding reality of trench warfare and geopolitical stalemate. Until something breaks. Or until someone, finally, has the courage to tell the truth: this war will not end with a handshake. It will end with compromise. Painful, partial, and permanent. That’s not Trump’s style. But it is reality. And as both Thucydides and Clausewitz would agree, reality—however tragic—always has the final.
About the Author:
Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with Defense Priorities, a think tank in Washington, DC. This first appeared in RealClearDefense.
What Are Europe’s Best Weapons of War?
