Trump has played throughout his career as a deal-maker who could deliver where others could not, and Ukraine represents the ultimate test of that image, notes Manish Dabhade.
After more than three years of relentless fighting in Ukraine, President Donald Trump has taken the boldest step yet to move the conflict toward peace.
Two landmark summits this August, the first in Alaska with Vladimir Putin on August 15, followed by a White House meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and top European leaders on August 18, have injected long-absent momentum into diplomatic efforts.
What distinguishes Trump's initiative is not just the choreography but the strategic shift: he has put diplomacy, not just force, at the center of US policy.
For the first time since 2022, all key players are talking seriously about what peace might look like.
That alone marks real progress in a war long defined by stalemate.
The Alaska summit was historic simply for happening. No Western leader had sat across from Putin since the invasion, and Trump used the encounter to press Moscow on what it would accept for a settlement.
Putin, true to form, demanded sweeping concessions, including Ukrainian territorial concessions.
That kind of rhetoric was immediately dismissed by Zelenskyy, but Trump's turnaround from calling for an immediate ceasefire to facilitating a direct peace settlement changed the conversation.
He simply asserted that a ceasefire on its own was not enough and only a complete settlement was required.
And with that, he moved US diplomacy out of crisis management and into conflict resolution.
A few days later, Trump welcomed Zelenskyy and other British, French, German, Italian leaders and NATO and EU chiefs to Washington.
The meeting was historic not only by scale but by significance: once again, America placed itself at the vanguard of a coalition by using its convening powers to bring allies together around peace as much as war aims.
The conciliatory tone Zelenskyy assumed at this meeting, calling it 'a major step forward' came after he himself had publicly clashed with Trump earlier this year.
That shift of mood is a reflection on this fact that diplomacy, turbulent though it remains, now actually has a chance.
Trump's motives are not difficult to guess. He has played throughout his career as a deal-maker who could deliver where others could not, and Ukraine represents the ultimate test of that image.
He campaigned to end the war quickly; as president he aims to deliver on it. But his drive is not just vanity.
Lasting peace would ease pressure on US resources, preclude a possible clash between NATO and Russia, and enable Washington to turn its attention to other priorities such as China and the Middle East.
It chimes too with a war-fatigued American public sceptical of signing open-ended checks on behalf of Ukraine with no way out.
What are called Trump's 'America First' reflexes here converge with strategic sense: Peace at home and abroad would save lives while protecting US interests.
Taking the initiative now represents a seizing of opportunity at a 'ripe' moment when all sides are tired and drained.
Trump's diplomacy already has tangible benefits to show for it. He has re-established high-level talks with Moscow as well as Kyiv, unthinkable just a few months ago.
He has brought European leaders right into the fold, ensuring any peace framework enjoys transatlantic legitimacy.
He has pressured Putin, even begrudgingly, to accept that post-conflict security for Ukraine needs to be ensured -- an opportunity for serious discussion about international enforcement measures.
He has even raised US intentions to underpin peace by air or by intelligence assistance, signaling to Kyiv that Washington is not going to leave it high and dry.
Perhaps just as significantly, he has put urgency into play by setting deadlines and pairing diplomacy with threats of harsher sanctions.
These actions have altered the pace of war from attritional stagnation to diplomatic potential.
The timing is certainly right. The cost of this war is enormous: More than a million killed or wounded, cities laid waste, millions displaced.
It is Europe's deadliest conflict since World War II, and the dangers of escalation -- into NATO territory or even nuclear brinksmanship -- are increasing.
For Russia and Ukraine alike, war has become a 'hurting stalemate' where each side is unable to win complete victory at an tolerable cost.
That is the classic situation under which negotiations are possible.
Europe desires stability, China and India prefer cessation of hostilities for economic grounds, and even Moscow elites recognise the perils of perpetual quagmire.
Trump's timing is thus not coincidental; he determined that this is the time at which diplomacy can prevail.
However, challenges on hand are significant. Filling out the space between Ukraine's refusal to surrender territory and Russia's refusal to give back its advances will require ingenuity and willpower.
The question of sequencing, whether to insist on a ceasefire first or plunge into comprehensive peace negotiations with war raging on, is a contentious one with European leaders insisting on an immediate ceasefire and Trump opting to negotiate for a all-encompassing arrangement.
Guarantees of security to Ukraine are another sticking point: Kyiv insists on 'ironclad' guarantees, whereas Russia dismisses any NATO footprint.
Finding an arrangement that convinces Ukraine without offending Moscow will put diplomatic skills to the test.
Allied cohesion too needs to be maintained. Eastern Europe is afraid of premature surrender to Russia, whereas Western Europe is afraid of war dragging on too long.
Until now, Trump's inclusive tactics have managed to keep everyone on track, but as negotiations deepen fault lines may arise.
Lastly, Trump needs to navigate domestic opinion. Critics are already accusing him of giving Putin a platform, whereas his supporters are applauding his daring to try diplomacy.
He needs to convince that engagement is not appeasement but a strategic move to end war on equal terms.
To all these challenges, Trump's peace offensive cannot be overestimated. For the first time in history, diplomacy is front and centre of US Ukraine policy.
After years of escalating arms packages and war reports, negotiation and settlement are at centre stage.
That is a much-needed correction. A just peace would save hundreds of thousands of lives, respect Ukrainian sovereignty, stabilize Europe, and reveal America's unique role as defender and peacemaker.
So far, Trump declined to force Kyiv into unacceptable concessions and kept Ukrainian self-determination as his compass guidepost.
And concurrently, he accepted an inexorable reality: Only foes speak at war's end.
Spinning the conversations into gear, Putin to Alaska, Zelenskyy and coalition to Washington, and perhaps both commanders together at a future trilateral meeting, Trump set into place conditions for what once was unthinkable.
The next several weeks will show whether this offensive generates more than atmospherics.
Even a framework accord or first principles for peace would be a historic breakthrough.
Failure remains possible, even likely. But what matters is that diplomacy has been given a serious chance.
That is a profound shift, and one which well deserves cautious applause.
Trump re-established US leadership both as an arsenal of democracy but as a peace architect.
History may well mark August 2025 as the moment at which the trajectory of the Ukraine war shifted from escalation to the negotiating table.
If so, Trump's gamble will be one of the most historically significant acts of American diplomacy on a generation's watch.
Manish Dabhade is aAssociate Professor of Diplomacy in the School of International Studies, JNU, and Founder of The Indian Futures, an independent think-tank.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff