The way U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally enforced his one-man plan for the Gaza ceasefire and the manner in which he is now attempting to organize peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war serve as indicators of the future direction of American foreign policy.
BY NOW, the world should have braced itself for a completely unpredictable and increasingly authoritarian American foreign policy, dictated by the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Following the controversial Gaza ceasefire plan, Trump—who had promised to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict within a day of assuming office—last week unveiled a new peace plan to end the three-year-old war, denying Ukraine any seat at the negotiating table.
After a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Wednesday, Trump stated that he might meet Putin “very soon,” as officials from both countries prepare to meet in Saudi Arabia for talks on ending the war in Ukraine.
As expected, Ukraine immediately rejected the proposed talks, as no Ukrainian representatives would be present. Neither Ukrainian nor European officials are participating in the discussions in Riyadh, though U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed on Sunday that Ukraine and Europe must be involved in any “real negotiations” that might result from the meeting.
In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press aired on Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that he would “never accept” any agreement reached without his country’s involvement. “This is a war in Ukraine, against us, and it’s our human losses,” Zelenskyy said earlier while attending the Munich Security Conference on Friday.
Zelenskyy has called for the creation of a unified European army, arguing that the continent must strengthen its own military capabilities in response to the ever-changing U.S. foreign policy, which, he claims, is bulldozing and dismantling established norms and precedents.
Similarly, speaking at the Munich conference on Saturday, European foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas compared the Trump administration’s approach to the failed appeasement policies leading up to World War II.
The Trump administration’s decision to hold key talks on Ukraine in Saudi Arabia underscores how far the Kingdom has come diplomatically—from a near-pariah state following the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi to a major U.S. diplomatic partner.
The cloud over Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) appears to have been lifted by the new Trump administration, seemingly in an effort to influence MbS to invest $1 trillion in the U.S. economy.
This entire plan appears to sideline America’s European partners, who, at Washington’s behest, had significantly increased their financial and military support for Ukraine. Moreover, the initiative seems to bypass established diplomatic mechanisms, placing power solely in the hands of Trump and his inner circle.
Even Republican lawmakers are struggling to formulate a coherent response to President Trump’s apparent willingness to accommodate Russia’s demands regarding Ukraine’s future. Their reactions—ranging from outright alarm to cautious soft-pedaling—highlight the challenges GOP policymakers face as they attempt to justify the administration’s actions to European allies.
Meanwhile, details of the proposed plan have been leaked by Trump’s own advisors. It reportedly includes the return of all illegally annexed Ukrainian territory and security guarantees backed by the U.S., preferably through NATO. However, newly appointed U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth told NATO allies that Washington no longer considers European security a top priority. He added that while Ukraine could expect security assurances, these would come from European nations rather than the U.S.
Marina Hyde, writing for The Guardian, opines that Putin is undoubtedly pleased to be treated with respect by Trump but is only being offered a draw when he still seeks victory. The U.S. is proposing an early ceasefire largely based on the current frontlines, followed by negotiations for a long-term peace settlement.
While this would allow Russia to retain a significant portion of Ukrainian territory, it would also leave open the possibility of Ukraine rearming with Western support and resuming the fight in the future. Russia, in turn, would have to subsidize and police occupied regions—many of which have been devastated by war—and defend an extended border, Hyde notes.
In one stroke, Trump has dismissed America’s European allies with complete disregard, prompting reactions of barely concealed dismay. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reaffirmed her support for Ukraine, stating that Europe is “looking forward to discussing the way ahead together with our American allies.”
Putin, for his part, would likely relish a summit with Trump—perhaps in Moscow—coinciding with Russia’s Victory Day celebrations in early May. He has long sought direct engagement with Washington, a move that would effectively sideline Europe and, crucially, Ukraine. A summit would allow him to reassert Russia’s global standing, reminiscent of 1945, when Joseph Stalin negotiated with Franklin D. Roosevelt in Yalta over the fate of Europe.
Ann Kiernan, writing for The Financial Times, notes that Putin is insisting on a peace settlement that secures his war aims—the subjugation of Ukraine—before agreeing to a ceasefire. His demands extend further, as evidenced in his call with Trump, where he reportedly sought to address what he views as the “root causes” of the conflict—namely, the post-Cold War European security order that has been unfavorable to Russia.
Ultimately, Trump’s new, seemingly reckless peace plan suggests that he has little interest in considering the views or security concerns of his European allies—whom he may discard at any moment. His apparent disdain for NATO and its expansion further underscores a tumultuous and unpredictable trajectory for U.S. foreign policy in the months and years ahead. 
Also Read: The Russo-Ukrainian Resource War and Its Resolution
Asad Mirza
The author is a New Delhi-based senior commentator on national and international affairs, defence and strategic issues, and environmental concerns. He is also an interfaith practitioner and a media consultant. Previously, he was associated with the BBC Urdu Service and the Khaleej Times in Dubai.
Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.
Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.
— Team PT