Trump favours full peace over ceasefire
news.rthk.hk -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 12:25:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations

US President Donald Trump on Saturday dropped his push for a ceasefire in Ukraine in favour of pursuing a full peace accord - a major shift announced hours after his summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin yielded no clear breakthrough.
Prior to the high-stakes meeting in Alaska, securing an immediate cessation of hostilities had been a core demand of Trump - who had threatened "severe consequences" on Russia - and European leaders, including Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, who will visit Washington on Monday.
The shift away from ceasefire would seem to favour Putin, who has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal - a strategy that Ukraine and its European allies have criticised as a way to buy time and press Russia's battlefield advances.
Trump spoke with Zelensky and European leaders on his flight back to Washington, saying afterwards that "it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement which would end the war."
Ceasefire agreements "often times do not hold up," Trump added on his Truth Social platform.
Trump notably also said the United States was prepared to provide Ukraine security guarantees, an assurance German Chancellor Friedrich Merz hailed as "significant progress."
In an interview with broadcaster Fox News after his sit-down with Putin, Trump suggested that the onus was now on Zelensky to secure a peace deal as they work towards an eventual trilateral summit with Putin.
"It's really up to President Zelensky to get it done," Trump said. (AFP)
Sign Our PetitionThe recent announcement by former President Donald Trump regarding his pivot from advocating for a ceasefire in Ukraine to promoting a full peace accord is indicative of a broader geopolitical strategy that raises significant questions about the role of U.S. foreign policy in conflict resolution. Historically, ceasefires have served as temporary measures to halt violence while negotiations for a more lasting peace take place. However, Trump's assertion that ceasefires "often times do not hold up" reflects a simplistic understanding of the complexities involved in international diplomacy. This shift in rhetoric not only favors Russian President Vladimir Putin’s long-standing pursuit of a peace deal but also dismisses the legitimate concerns of Ukraine and its allies, who see these negotiations as a potential cover for further Russian aggression.
The implications of Trump’s stance are profound when examined through the lens of historical contexts. The Cold War era is replete with instances where peace agreements were used as strategic pauses instead of genuine resolutions. The legacy of Vietnam and the fragility of the Paris Peace Accords serve as sobering reminders of how such agreements can fail, often leaving a power vacuum that invites renewed hostilities. Trump’s dismissal of ceasefire negotiations suggests a willingness to prioritize diplomatic expediency over the democratic sovereignty of Ukraine, a nation that has endured the ravages of conflict for far too long. The historical precedent urges caution; while a peace agreement sounds appealing, it must be backed by robust guarantees that prevent further incursions and protect the rights of the Ukrainian people.
Moreover, the context of Trump's comments during his meeting with Putin underscores a troubling trend in U.S. foreign policy: the tendency to prioritize relationships with authoritarian leaders over the principles of democracy and human rights. By suggesting that it is "up to President Zelensky to get it done," Trump places the burden of resolution on Ukraine, potentially sidelining the systemic injustices and power asymmetries that have led to the current conflict. This reframing of responsibility not only absolves Russia of its role in the ongoing violence but also reflects a broader pattern of the U.S. failing to hold powerful nations accountable for their actions. Such dynamics can further embolden aggressor states and undermine global efforts to uphold international law and humanitarian principles.
Furthermore, Trump's assertion of U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, while potentially seen as a positive development by some, raises critical questions about the nature and reliability of such support. The historical context of U.S. security commitments, particularly in regions like the Middle East, showcases a pattern of inconsistent follow-through. The commitments made must translate into meaningful action that supports Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity rather than merely serving as a rhetorical flourish. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy that includes economic aid, military support, and diplomatic backing, these security guarantees may fall flat, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to further Russian advances.
Lastly, the ongoing struggle in Ukraine is reflective of a broader global fight against authoritarianism and for the preservation of democratic norms. The international community has a responsibility to stand in solidarity with Ukraine, reinforcing its right to self-determination and security. The complexities of war demand nuanced solutions that prioritize peace without compromising justice. As citizens engaged in social and political advocacy, it is essential to hold leaders accountable for their foreign policy choices and to advocate for a comprehensive approach that truly addresses the needs of vulnerable nations. By understanding the historical contexts and current geopolitical dynamics, we can engage in more informed discussions about the path forward, emphasizing the importance of upholding human rights and supporting democratic movements worldwide.
The recent shift in President Trump’s foreign policy approach towards the ongoing conflict in Ukraine marks a significant pivot from advocating for a ceasefire to pursuing a comprehensive peace agreement. This change comes in the aftermath of his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where expectations for a breakthrough were not met. Historically, ceasefires have been critical in managing conflicts, yet they often prove to be precarious and short-lived. By favoring a peace accord, Trump appears to align closely with Putin’s long-standing desire for negotiations, raising concerns about the implications for Ukraine and its allies, particularly as the war continues to inflict devastating consequences on the region’s civilian population.
The call for a full peace agreement rather than a ceasefire is troubling for several reasons. First, it may allow Russia to consolidate its territorial gains while stalling negotiations, essentially granting Putin a strategic advantage. The historical context of similar conflicts underscores this concern; past negotiations have often been exploited by aggressors to entrench their positions rather than achieve genuine peace. Furthermore, Trump’s framing of the situation places the burden of resolution on President Zelensky, which could be perceived as a dismissal of Ukraine’s sovereignty and agency in determining its future. This shift in responsibility is problematic, especially given that Ukraine has been the primary victim of Russian aggression.
As Americans, we can take several actions to respond to this shift in policy. First and foremost, it is crucial to engage in informed discussions about the implications of a peace agreement that prioritizes expediency over justice. Grassroots movements can mobilize to advocate for sustained support for Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of upholding international law and the right of nations to defend their sovereignty. Organizing educational forums and discussions can help to raise awareness about the complexities of the conflict, the historical patterns of Russian aggression, and the potential ramifications of undercutting Ukraine’s position in negotiations.
In addition to grassroots advocacy, it is imperative to hold elected officials accountable. Citizens can reach out to their representatives to express their concerns about the administration's approach to the Ukraine conflict and advocate for policies that prioritize the protection of Ukrainian sovereignty and the need for a just resolution. Engaging in lobbying efforts to ensure that U.S. foreign policy supports international norms rather than appeasing authoritarian regimes is essential. This includes pushing for comprehensive security guarantees for Ukraine that do not undermine its territorial integrity or sovereignty.
Finally, the educational aspect of this issue cannot be overstated. By disseminating accurate and comprehensive information about the conflict, we can counter misinformation and foster a more nuanced understanding of geopolitical dynamics. This includes examining the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations, the impact of NATO expansion, and the significance of international law in conflict resolution. Educating our communities about the stakes involved in the Ukraine conflict not only enriches public discourse but also empowers individuals to become informed advocates for peace and justice on both local and global scales.
In conclusion, while Trump's pivot towards a full peace agreement may appeal to some as a pragmatic approach to ending the conflict, it raises fundamental questions about whose interests are being served. As Americans, we have the responsibility to critically assess these developments, advocate for Ukraine's sovereignty, and promote a foreign policy framework that upholds international justice. Engaging in dialogue, demanding accountability from our leaders, and educating ourselves and others on these pressing issues will be essential steps in shaping a more just and equitable response to the conflict in Ukraine.
The recent announcement regarding President Trump’s shift from advocating for a ceasefire to pursuing a full peace accord in the Ukraine conflict raises several key considerations for individuals looking to engage with this issue. Here’s a detailed list of actionable ideas for making a difference:
### Personal Actions to Take
1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - Stay informed about the Ukraine conflict, including the historical context and current developments. Share this information with your community, friends, and family to raise awareness.
2. **Engage with Local Community Organizations** - Join or support local organizations that advocate for peace and humanitarian aid in Ukraine. Examples include local chapters of international NGOs like Amnesty International or local peace coalitions.
3. **Contact Elected Officials** - Write to your elected representatives to express your views on U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine. Emphasize the need for a diplomatic approach that prioritizes humanitarian concerns and supports peace initiatives.
**Example Contacts:** - **U.S. Senators**: Find your Senator’s contact information through [www.senate.gov](http://www.senate.gov). - **U.S. Representatives**: Locate your Representative’s details at [www.house.gov](http://www.house.gov).
**Example Message:** ``` Subject: Urgent Need for a Peaceful Resolution in Ukraine
Dear [Senator/Representative's Name],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent shift in U.S. policy towards Ukraine. I urge you to support efforts that prioritize a peaceful resolution to the conflict and emphasize diplomacy over military solutions.
The humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is dire, and it is imperative that the U.S. leads the way in advocating for a ceasefire followed by negotiations that consider the needs and voices of the Ukrainian people.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
4. **Sign and Share Petitions** - Participate in or circulate petitions that advocate for humanitarian aid to Ukraine and for a diplomatic resolution. Websites like Change.org and MoveOn.org often host relevant petitions.
**Example Petitions:** - "Support Humanitarian Aid for Ukraine" on Change.org. - "Call for Ceasefire Negotiations" on MoveOn.org.
5. **Attend Local Events and Rallies** - Look for local peace rallies or community meetings focused on Ukraine and participate. Events organized by peace advocacy groups can amplify your voice.
6. **Engage on Social Media** - Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to advocate for peace in Ukraine. Share articles, write posts, and engage with others who are discussing the issue.
7. **Write Opinion Pieces** - Consider writing an op-ed or letter to the editor for your local newspaper highlighting the need for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. This can help raise awareness within your community.
8. **Support Refugees and Humanitarian Organizations** - Contribute to organizations that are providing aid to those affected by the conflict. Examples include the International Rescue Committee and the Red Cross. You can also volunteer your time to help refugees resettle in your area.
### Conclusion
Engaging with the situation in Ukraine from a personal level can contribute to broader movements advocating for peace and humanitarian support. By educating yourself, reaching out to your representatives, signing petitions, and participating in community efforts, you can help shape a more compassionate and effective response to this ongoing crisis.