Photo:AFP

The war between Russia and Ukraine, which began in February 2022, is now in its fourth year with no clear end in sight. Millions of people have been displaced, thousands of lives have been lost, and cities in Ukraine remain under constant attack. Over time, several attempts at peace talks have taken place, but none have succeeded in ending the conflict.

Now, U.S. President Donald Trump has stepped into the center of this crisis with a dramatic new move. On Thursday, August 21, 2025, Trump announced that he is giving just two weeks to assess whether the latest round of peace talks will succeed. If no progress is made, he says the United States may “take a different direction.”

This deadline comes shortly after Trump’s much-anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15, which ended without a deal. It also follows Trump’s talks at the White House with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European allies on August 18.

The announcement shows Trump’s determination to push forward, but it also raises many questions: What happens if the talks fail? What kind of “different direction” might Trump take? And most importantly, will this deadline bring the warring sides closer to peace, or push them further apart?

Trump’s Words: A Deadline for Peace

Speaking in a telephone interview, Trump made it clear that the world will not have to wait long to see if peace is possible.

“I would say within two weeks we’re going to know one way or the other,” he said.

“After that, we’ll have to maybe take a different tack.”

These words signal both urgency and pressure. Trump wants to show that his administration is not just passively waiting but actively driving the talks. Yet, critics point out that Trump has set similar deadlines before, and they often pass without results.

In May 2025, Trump had already given Putin a two-week period to prove he was serious about peace. Nothing came from it, and the war continued. Now, Trump is once again using the same approach, hoping to push both Russia and Ukraine toward a decision.

The Alaska Summit: High Hopes, No Deal

The meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska on August 15 was one of the most closely watched diplomatic events of the year. It was held in Anchorage, a symbolic location chosen by Trump to emphasize U.S. control in the Pacific and Arctic regions while also making it neutral ground between Washington and Moscow.

Leading up to the summit, Trump had said that he wanted to achieve an “initial ceasefire” to stop the fighting as a first step toward broader peace. However, after hours of discussions, the summit ended without any agreement.

Instead, both leaders left the meeting with polite statements but little substance. Putin refused to commit to a ceasefire, while Trump dropped his push for one, saying instead that more time was needed. The lack of a breakthrough was seen as a disappointment, especially by European countries that are watching the conflict with growing concern.

India, however, endorsed the summit and praised Trump’s efforts, saying that even if no deal was made, dialogue was an important step toward eventual peace.

Zelenskyy’s Frustration

On Monday, August 18, Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. Zelenskyy was joined by representatives from several European countries. The goal was to prepare the ground for a potential face-to-face meeting between him and Putin.

For a short time, optimism grew. Both Ukraine and Russia seemed open to the idea of a direct summit, which could have been the first meaningful conversation between the two leaders since the war began. But within days, the hope collapsed.

On August 21, the same day Trump announced his two-week deadline, Zelenskyy accused Russia of avoiding direct talks.

“Russia is trying to escape the necessity to meet. They do not want to end the war,” Zelenskyy said.

His words reflect the deep mistrust that has defined relations between the two countries since the invasion began. For Ukraine, any peace deal must include strong security guarantees from Western allies, as well as a commitment from Russia to withdraw its forces. For Russia, these demands are unacceptable.

Russia’s Counter-Accusation

Moscow responded sharply to Zelenskyy’s comments. Russian officials accused Ukraine of not being serious about peace and said Kyiv’s demands were unrealistic.

They argued that Ukraine wanted “long-term” guarantees from NATO and Western powers that Russia could never accept. At the same time, Moscow announced it had captured three settlements in eastern Ukraine, showing that military operations are still ongoing despite the diplomatic discussions.

This tug-of-war highlights the main challenge: both sides blame each other, and both continue to fight while talks are underway. Without compromise, peace seems far away.

Trump’s Negotiation Style

Trump’s approach to the Ukraine war is very different from that of past U.S. leaders. He has promised since his election campaign that he could “end the war in one day.” While that has not happened, he continues to pressure both Russia and Ukraine with short, sharp deadlines.

This style of negotiation—setting strict timelines and warning of consequences—comes from Trump’s background in business. However, wars are far more complicated than business deals. Diplomats warn that rushing the process could backfire, pushing one or both sides to harden their positions.

Still, Trump believes that time pressure forces leaders to act. Whether that will work in this case remains to be seen.

Global Impact of the Deadline

The entire world is watching closely. The outcome of these peace talks will not only decide Ukraine’s future but also affect global security, energy prices, and economic stability.

* Europe is deeply worried because the war has brought instability to its doorstep. Millions of Ukrainian refugees live in European countries, and the constant threat of escalation weighs heavily on the continent.

* Asia is watching because the conflict has reshaped energy markets and food supplies. Many Asian countries depend on Ukrainian grain and Russian fuel.

* The Middle East and Africa have also felt the impact of rising food prices caused by the war.

* India, a rising global power, has openly supported Trump’s summit and continues to call for peace.

In short, the war is not just about Russia and Ukraine. It has become a global crisis, and Trump’s self-imposed deadline adds new pressure to resolve it.

What Happens After Two Weeks?

Trump has not explained what he means by “taking a different tack” if peace talks fail. Experts suggest a few possibilities:

1. Stronger military aid to Ukraine – The U.S. could provide more advanced weapons and financial support to help Ukraine resist Russia.

2. Harsher sanctions on Russia – The U.S. and allies could impose new economic restrictions to weaken Moscow’s ability to continue the war.

3. Direct negotiations with new conditions – Trump could try to host another summit but with stricter rules.

4. A step back from the talks – Although less likely, Trump could also reduce U.S. involvement if he feels the talks are a waste of time.

Each of these options comes with risks. Stronger U.S. involvement could anger Russia and escalate the conflict. On the other hand, stepping back might weaken Ukraine’s position and encourage Russia to push harder militarily.

President Trump’s announcement of a two-week deadline has put the Russia-Ukraine war back in the global spotlight. For Ukraine, the timeline is a chance to rally support from Western allies. For Russia, it is a test of whether Putin is willing to compromise or continue fighting.

Three and a half years after the invasion began, the world is still waiting for peace. Trump’s bold move may either unlock a path forward or mark another failed attempt in a long line of unsuccessful talks. The next two weeks will show whether his gamble pays off—or whether the war drags on into yet another year.