As Donald Trump secures a return to the White House, his campaign’s repeated promise to end the Ukraine conflict “in 24 hours” has reemerged as a focal point of discussion. The feasibility of resolving such a complex geopolitical crisis in such a short time, however, raises considerable skepticism. From both American and Russian perspectives, the possibility that the Ukraine conflict could be swiftly resolved is questionable at best, even under the leadership of an administration willing to take a new approach.

During the election campaign, Trump’s assertion that he could bring the conflict to an end in a day seemed to be a hallmark of his “America First” rhetoric. This campaign promise, much like his 2019 attempts to address tensions with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, might well have served as a talking point aimed at contrasting his foreign policy approach with that of his predecessors. Despite the hype surrounding his statement, Trump’s previous ventures in diplomacy have not always led to clear, actionable results, and he has not successfully resolved issues with any major adversaries on a comparable scale.

For Trump to end the Ukraine conflict before his official inauguration is an ambitious goal facing considerable roadblocks. Firstly, until noon on January 20, Joe Biden remains the sitting president and will retain full control over US foreign policy. During this transition period, Trump holds no official power and would thus be unable to initiate or conclude any significant negotiations or peace agreements with Russia, Ukraine, or NATO. This reality contradicts his campaign promises of an immediate end to the hostilities.

Even after taking office, Trump would face bureaucratic and logistical hurdles. Forming a cabinet, engaging with NATO allies, and appointing officials to key positions would take time, delaying his administration’s capacity to engage fully in foreign diplomacy. Moreover, his administration’s approach would likely need to balance diplomatic channels, military alliances, and strategic leverage in ways that do not alienate allies or convey a one-sided victory to either Russia or Ukraine.

Ending the armed conflict in Ukraine is theoretically possible, but it hinges on achieving terms acceptable to all major stakeholders, including Moscow, Kyiv, and Washington. For Russia, an acceptable peace would likely mean Kyiv’s non-alignment with NATO, official recognition of Russian control over disputed regions, and guarantees of Ukraine’s demilitarization. Yet, such terms would likely be perceived as a defeat for NATO and a concession by the United States, which has spent significant resources to bolster Ukrainian defense efforts.

This scenario represents a politically challenging situation for any US president, as accepting Russian terms could be viewed as a retreat from the West’s longstanding policy of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty. For Trump, allowing Russia to retain territories in Ukraine could be a particularly risky strategy, especially in the wake of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, which critics saw as a blow to US global influence. Opting for peace on Putin’s terms could thus undermine American foreign policy prestige, especially in Europe, where leaders remain committed to upholding Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

If Trump genuinely aims to end the conflict quickly, he would likely need to construct a solution that allows both Kyiv and Moscow to claim at least partial success. In this vein, his administration would have to position the outcome in such a way that the West has not lost, Russia has not unequivocally won, and Ukraine’s sovereignty appears intact. This balancing act would involve crafting a narrative that emphasizes diplomacy over military outcomes, possibly suggesting a temporary freeze of hostilities and negotiations on the status of contested regions without ceding them outright to Russia.

For such a compromise to appear viable, Kyiv would need to be seen as leading the call for peace, thereby positioning the West as a supportive partner rather than a broker imposing terms. In this way, Ukraine’s leadership could retain its image of agency, while Trump’s administration could claim diplomatic success. However, this strategy remains highly speculative and depends on Trump’s ability to manage delicate negotiations with Russia and Ukraine, as well as with NATO allies wary of appeasing Moscow.

Trump does have several tools at his disposal if he decides to shift US strategy in Ukraine. Reducing military aid and weaponry shipments to Ukraine could pressure Kyiv to come to the negotiation table, as American support has been essential to Ukraine’s defense capabilities. Conversely, Trump could signal intensified sanctions against Moscow to incentivize Russia’s cooperation. Though these moves represent potential avenues for leveraging US influence, they could also strain relationships with European allies who would likely view a reduction in military support as a premature and destabilizing move.

This recalibration of US policy toward the Ukraine conflict might appeal to Trump’s desire to project American strength, but it is far from a quick fix. Economic and military pressure alone are unlikely to bring an end to hostilities in a day, especially if Russia remains committed to achieving specific territorial and political outcomes in Ukraine.

From Russia’s standpoint, the time leading up to Trump’s inauguration could present an opportunity to establish further territorial gains in Ukraine, capitalizing on potential delays in US diplomatic action. Should Russia succeed in shifting the balance on the battlefield, it might solidify its position, making any eventual peace talks skewed in Moscow’s favor. If Trump wishes to capitalize on these dynamics, he will likely need to act quickly after taking office, potentially accelerating the diplomatic process to prevent further Russian encroachment.

In the end, the notion of ending the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours is highly unrealistic given the complexities involved. While Trump may approach the situation with the intent of seeking a diplomatic resolution, a swift conclusion to the hostilities remains unlikely. Realistically, achieving peace in Ukraine will require patience, diplomatic finesse, and a willingness to engage in long-term dialogue with all involved parties. The very nature of the conflict-rooted in deep-seated historical, political, and territorial disputes-defies simple solutions.

For Trump, the challenge will be to navigate these dynamics in a way that aligns with his campaign rhetoric while acknowledging the limitations of his position. In seeking to conclude the Ukraine conflict, his administration must balance the interests of Russia, Ukraine, and NATO, each of whom have different visions for the future of the region. Ultimately, while Trump may promise a quick end to the conflict, the path forward will likely demand far more than a single day’s work.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel