Azadi Post: Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s statement regarding the possibility of ending the war in Ukraine within weeks has sparked widespread controversy in international political circles, especially amid the rapidly evolving situation in the region. Trump's remarks came after his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, who in turn emphasized the readiness of European countries to send peacekeeping forces as part of a comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

These statements indicate a shift in the U.S. stance on the Ukrainian crisis, as Trump appears more eager to end the war compared to previous administrations, which primarily focused on military and economic support for Ukraine without proposing radical diplomatic solutions. He warned that the continuation of the war could lead to a dangerous escalation that might develop into a third world war—something Washington is determined to avoid at all costs. Additionally, his announcement that nearly 700,000 soldiers have been lost from both sides highlights the scale of the humanitarian and military catastrophe affecting the warring parties.

From a political perspective, Trump seems to link ending the war to an economic agreement related to minerals between the United States and Ukraine, reflecting his approach of prioritizing economic interests as a means to achieve stability. While this strategy may be welcomed in some political circles, it could raise concerns among Washington’s allies, particularly those who see such agreemen

ts as undermining long-term security and strategic considerations. Conversely, Macron’s stance reflects a more pragmatic European approach, as he affirmed the readiness of European nations to play a more active role in achieving regional stability, including the deployment of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. However, this proposal could face significant challenges, especially given Russia’s reservations about any European military presence in conflict zones. Nevertheless, Trump’s remarks suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin might accept the presence of European peacekeeping forces indicate the potential for preliminary understandings between Moscow and Washington regarding the future of the Ukrainian crisis.

Strategically, deeper European involvement in the Ukrainian conflict could lead to a reshaping of the balance of power in the continent, as Europe seeks to enhance its strategic autonomy away from traditional U.S. dominance. This shift could result in tensions within NATO, particularly if differences emerge between Washington and European capitals regarding how to handle Moscow.

On the other hand, Ukraine faces a difficult dilemma. Accepting a peace agreement with U.S. and European guarantees may require making political or territorial concessions to Moscow—an outcome likely to face strong opposition within Ukraine, especially among nationalist circles that reject any resolution perceived as a victory for Russia. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may find himself compelled to agree to a deal that ensures a ceasefire and the reconstruction of the country, particularly if he receives clear security guarantees from Western allies.

Amid these complexities, the key question remains: how realistic is the U.S. proposal to end the war within weeks? While diplomatic momentum toward a truce is growing, numerous factors could hinder a swift agreement, especially since no settlement will be acceptable unless it takes into account the vital interests of all parties involved.

Ultimately, the coming developments will be crucial in determining the fate of the war in Ukraine—whether through an economic deal that could serve as a key to resolution or through security arrangements that ensure long-term stability in the region. In any case, the days ahead remain open to multiple scenarios, ranging from conditional peace to continued confrontation, as the world awaits the outcome of diplomatic efforts on both regional and international levels.