Trump can’t decide who to blame for a failing peace deal that would only lead to further conflict

Following two consecutive nights of deadly Russian air attacks on the capital Kyiv and the eastern Ukrainian city of Pavlohrad, hopes for a ceasefire in Ukraine remain distant. The lack of Russian commitment to a deal is compounded by US President Donald Trump’s wavering stance on who to hold accountable if ceasefire negotiations fail.

Trump initially blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for stalling a deal by not recognizing Crimea as Russian. However, he later criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin for the attacks, urging him to cease the hostilities. The core issue hindering a ceasefire agreement is the terms of a final peace deal and the concessions Kyiv and its European allies are willing to accept, with a firm stance against acknowledging Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.

Opinion polls in Ukraine reflect limited support for temporary concessions to Russia, with Kyiv’s mayor suggesting temporary territorial concessions as a potential solution. Despite three rounds of talks led by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, a proposed deal was rejected by Ukraine, Britain, France, and Germany. This led to the withdrawal of Witkoff and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio from follow-up talks in London, with a vague commitment to future discussions.

The stumbling block lies in Washington’s proposal, which includes recognizing Crimea as Russian, preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, accepting Moscow’s control in eastern Ukraine, and lifting sanctions against Russia. These demands, particularly territorial concessions, violate international law and offer little security for Ukraine, signaling a flawed understanding of the conflict.

Recent peace talks in London revealed further discord, with counterproposals from Europe and Ukraine rejecting Trump’s terms until a ceasefire is in place. The lack of a credible deterrent, unlike in historical cases like Korea and Cyprus, exacerbates the uncertainty in Ukraine. Trump’s administration risks repeating past mistakes by appeasing aggressors rather than deterring them, mirroring the failures of the 1938 Munich Agreement.