Trump’s Approach to Ukraine and Russia: A Strategic Path Forward

On Thursday, June 5, 2025, President Donald Trump made a provocative statement regarding the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. In a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Trump suggested that, perhaps, the best approach at this point is to allow the two nations to continue their current course for a while longer before stepping in to facilitate peace negotiations.

The analogy Trump used to describe the situation was one that many would find striking—he likened the situation between Ukraine and Russia to a playground dispute between two children who are at odds with each other.

Trump’s suggestion was that, like two young children who refuse to stop their scuffle, it could be beneficial to let them continue for a while before intervening.

He framed this analogy in a way that emphasized the importance of both sides reaching a breaking point, where they are finally ready to listen to reason and work toward resolution.

This approach has sparked some debate, but it also reveals a deeper strategic insight into Trump’s thinking about international diplomacy and conflict resolution.

President Trump has always been known for his unconventional approach to diplomacy and politics. Whether it was his dealings with North Korea or his strategy on trade with China, Trump has consistently demonstrated that his methods, while sometimes controversial, often yield results.

His stance on the situation in Ukraine and Russia follows this pattern of thinking. Instead of rushing into negotiations or pushing for an immediate ceasefire, Trump is suggesting that sometimes allowing the parties involved to wear themselves down can lead to a more sustainable and lasting peace.

This is not to say that Trump advocates for prolonged instability or harm. Rather, it reflects his belief that diplomacy should be conducted at a time when the involved parties are genuinely ready to negotiate.

Just as children on a playground might not listen to their parents or teachers when they are caught up in the heat of the moment, international leaders embroiled in conflict might not be willing to come to the negotiating table until they reach a certain point where they realize the cost of continuing is too great.

Trump’s analogy, though simplistic, speaks to his broader philosophy of pragmatic diplomacy: sometimes, it’s not about immediately stepping in but rather allowing time to do its work, so that when negotiations do happen, they are meaningful and lead to real, lasting change.

One of the key principles that Trump has always emphasized is the importance of timing in diplomacy. Throughout his tenure as president, he consistently focused on engaging with adversaries only when the time was right.

His approach to foreign policy was not about rushing into situations but about waiting until conditions were favorable for America’s interests.

This approach extended to his dealings with Russia, where he maintained a position of strength, engaging with President Vladimir Putin at the right time, but never allowing the relationship to become one of weakness or concession.

Trump’s position on the situation between Ukraine and Russia reflects this same thinking. Rather than rushing into an agreement that could leave one side feeling like they have been forced into a resolution, Trump is suggesting that allowing the situation to evolve naturally could lead to a more sustainable peace.

Just as he dealt with North Korea, where he pursued peace only after significant pressure had built up on both sides, Trump believes that sometimes, letting the tensions build until both parties are ready to talk is the best strategy.

This strategy is a departure from the more conventional approaches of past administrations, which often rushed into negotiations or imposed premature ceasefires that lacked long-term viability.

By contrast, Trump’s suggestion to let the situation play out may seem unorthodox, but it underscores his commitment to ensuring that when peace does come, it is durable and based on mutual readiness, rather than an imposed or hastily constructed agreement.

Throughout his career, Trump has demonstrated an uncanny ability to cut deals and navigate difficult negotiations. Whether it was his work in real estate, his dealings with foreign governments, or his time in office, Trump’s track record shows a man who knows how to make deals on his own terms.

His negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, for instance, were unprecedented in their scope and diplomacy. While critics were quick to dismiss the idea of engaging with a dictator, Trump’s approach resulted in multiple historic summits that changed the dynamics on the Korean Peninsula.

Similarly, Trump’s approach to trade and international relations has consistently focused on putting America first, but also on understanding the importance of strategic timing.

His decision to impose tariffs on China and renegotiate trade deals like NAFTA was not done in haste. It was part of a larger strategy to exert pressure on other nations and ensure that when negotiations happened, they would be favorable to the United States.

The end result was the successful USMCA agreement and China’s renewed engagement on trade issues.

Trump’s instincts on foreign policy are based on a deep understanding of human nature and the dynamics of power. By allowing time to pass and letting the opposing parties reach a breaking point, he is effectively ensuring that any agreement that comes out of the conflict will be one where both parties are motivated by necessity rather than the pressure of external forces.

Another facet of Trump’s foreign policy is his willingness to bypass traditional diplomatic channels when they are ineffective or mired in bureaucracy.

Trump often found success by going directly to the leaders involved, bypassing the typical constraints of formal diplomacy. This is exemplified by his dealings with Putin, where he engaged directly with the Russian president rather than relying on intermediaries or traditional diplomatic institutions.

This willingness to engage directly with leaders on an equal footing, rather than relying on the usual diplomatic norms, allowed Trump to assert American interests without compromising.

In the case of Ukraine and Russia, Trump’s approach is not unlike his style in these other negotiations. Rather than calling for an immediate ceasefire or heavy sanctions, Trump is focusing on the importance of timing and using leverage to ensure that when talks happen, they will be more than just a temporary solution. This approach has been a hallmark of his career, where he has always prioritized results over the appearance of diplomacy.

Trump’s comments about letting Ukraine and Russia “go at it for a while” have certainly raised eyebrows, especially among those who are quick to criticize his foreign policy.

Critics argue that allowing the situation to drag on could lead to more harm and suffering, especially for civilians caught in the crossfire. However, Trump’s critics often overlook the complexities of the conflict and the need for a resolution that will not only end the immediate violence but also prevent future outbreaks of hostilities.

The criticism of Trump’s approach, however, is more about optics than substance. Critics tend to focus on the sensational aspects of his comments, such as the idea of allowing two countries to continue their actions for a period.

They fail to appreciate the larger strategic thinking that underpins his approach. By giving the situation time to reach a point where both sides are more willing to negotiate, Trump is setting the stage for a more meaningful resolution.

It’s a gamble, to be sure, but one that is grounded in his philosophy of using pressure and timing to secure lasting outcomes. Trump’s approach to the situation between Ukraine and Russia is rooted in a deep understanding of negotiation and international relations.

Unlike traditional diplomacy, which often seeks immediate resolution without considering the long-term consequences, Trump’s strategy allows both sides to reach a point where they are more likely to come to the table with a genuine desire for peace.

This approach acknowledges that conflicts, whether between nations or individuals, are rarely solved by simply stepping in at the moment of crisis. Instead, true resolution comes when both parties realize that they have reached the limits of their positions and are ready to find common ground.

Trump’s suggestion to let the conflict continue for a while before intervening might seem unconventional, but it is consistent with his broader philosophy of not rushing into agreements that lack genuine buy-in from all parties involved.

In the end, Trump’s strategy on Ukraine and Russia is a reminder of the importance of patience and timing in international diplomacy. While the world may be looking for quick fixes, Trump understands that true peace is not something that can be imposed by force.

Instead, it is something that must come when both sides are ready and willing to negotiate on their own terms. This strategic patience may be the key to ending the conflict, but it will take time for the full implications of this approach to become clear.

However, one thing is certain: Trump’s unconventional thinking on foreign policy remains a powerful force on the global stage.

President Trump’s statement about allowing Ukraine and Russia to continue their course before pursuing peace might have raised eyebrows, but it is a strategy grounded in his larger philosophy of strategic negotiation and leverage.

As a negotiator, Trump has always focused on timing and pressure, ensuring that any agreement that is reached is based on real readiness from both parties involved.

His approach may be unconventional, but it is rooted in a deep understanding of how to make lasting peace, not just temporary ceasefires. Trump’s strategy for dealing with the conflict between Ukraine and Russia is a testament to his belief in patience and timing, qualities that have served him well throughout his career in business and politics.