On February 21, 2025, US President Donald Trump ignited fresh controversy with remarks that underscored a radical departure from his predecessor’s strategy in the Russia-Ukraine war. In an interview with Fox News Radio, Trump dismissed the necessity of including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in peace negotiations, intensifying his critique of the embattled leader. The comments, delivered with Trump’s characteristic bluntness, signal a seismic shift in US foreign policy—one that prioritizes direct engagement with Russia and sidelines Ukraine, upending years of diplomatic norms.
Trump’s Critique of Zelenskiy
Trump’s latest remarks zeroed in on Zelenskiy’s handling of the conflict, which began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. “I don’t think he’s very important to be at meetings, to be honest with you,” Trump told Fox News Radio. He pointed to Zelenskiy’s three years of negotiations since the war’s onset, arguing that the Ukrainian leader had failed to secure peace. “When Zelenskiy said, oh, he wasn’t invited to a meeting, I mean, it wasn’t a priority because he did such a bad job in negotiating so far,” Trump added.
This critique builds on Trump’s ongoing narrative that Zelenskiy—and former US President Joe Biden—bear responsibility for the war’s outbreak. “Biden said the wrong things, Zelenskiy said the wrong things, they got attacked by somebody that’s much bigger and much stronger,” Trump asserted, suggesting that Russia’s aggression could have been averted with savvier diplomacy. He even ventured a defense of Moscow, claiming, “Russia could have been talked out of that so easily,” a statement that has drawn predictable backlash from critics accusing him of downplaying Russia’s role.
A Shift in Diplomatic Strategy
Trump’s comments are more than rhetorical jabs—they reflect a tangible shift in how his administration intends to address the conflict. Last week, Trump held a direct conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a move that raised eyebrows given the fraught history between Washington and Moscow. Earlier this week, senior US officials met with Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia, notably without Ukrainian representation. These developments suggest Trump is forging ahead with a bilateral approach, engaging Russia directly while relegating Ukraine to the sidelines.
This strategy stands in stark contrast to the Biden administration’s mantra of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Under Biden, the US positioned itself as a staunch supporter of Kyiv, funneling billions in military aid and insisting that Ukraine’s voice be central to any resolution. Trump, however, appears intent on rewriting the playbook. By excluding Zelenskiy, he is betting that a deal can be struck with Putin independently, a gamble that hinges on his ability to sway the Russian leader.
Context from the Ground
The Russia-Ukraine war, now in its third year, has exacted a devastating toll. According to the United Nations, over 10,000 civilians have been killed and millions displaced since 2022, with Ukraine’s infrastructure ravaged by relentless Russian assaults (UN News, 2025). Zelenskiy has emerged as a global symbol of resistance, rallying international support to counter Moscow’s aggression. Yet, Trump’s remarks cast doubt on Zelenskiy’s efficacy, framing him as an ineffective negotiator despite Ukraine’s battlefield resilience against a far larger foe.
Web reports corroborate the timeline Trump referenced. Zelenskiy has indeed been engaged in near-constant diplomacy since the invasion, meeting with world leaders, addressing the UN, and securing aid packages from NATO allies (BBC, February 2025). However, peace remains elusive, with Russia maintaining control over roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and parts of the Donbas region (Reuters, 2025). Trump’s assertion that Zelenskiy’s efforts have failed overlooks the asymmetric nature of the conflict—Ukraine, with a population of 44 million, faces a Russia of 144 million with vastly superior military resources.
Trump’s Russia Gambit
Trump’s willingness to engage Putin directly is not entirely new. During his first term (2017-2021), he often expressed admiration for the Russian leader and sought to improve bilateral ties, despite tensions over election interference and Syria (CNN, 2018). His recent outreach to Putin, confirmed by White House sources, aligns with this pattern. While details of their February 2025 call remain sparse, Trump has hinted at a dealmaking approach, claiming he can end the war swiftly—a promise he reiterated on the campaign trail in 2024 (Politico, 2024).
The Saudi Arabia meeting, reported by Bloomberg on February 20, 2025, further illustrates this pivot. Held in Riyadh, the talks involved senior US figures like National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The absence of Ukrainians sparked immediate backlash from Kyiv, with Zelenskiy’s office issuing a statement decrying the exclusion as a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty (Kyiv Post, 2025). For Trump, however, the move is strategic: by cutting out the middleman, he aims to streamline negotiations with Moscow.
Implications for Ukraine and the West
Trump’s approach raises profound questions about Ukraine’s future. If the US brokers a deal without Kyiv’s input, Zelenskiy could be forced to accept terms dictated by Washington and Moscow—potentially ceding territory or neutrality in exchange for peace. Such an outcome would undermine Ukraine’s three-year struggle and alienate allies who have poured resources into its defense. NATO leaders, already wary of Trump’s skepticism toward the alliance, have expressed unease, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling for “clarity” on US intentions (DW, 2025).
The Biden-era policy, while imperfect, prioritized Ukrainian agency. Over $100 billion in US aid bolstered Ukraine’s military, enabling it to reclaim territory in 2022 and 2023 (Congressional Research Service, 2025). Trump’s critics argue that sidelining Zelenskiy risks squandering these gains, handing Putin a diplomatic victory without firing a shot. Supporters, however, see Trump’s pragmatism as a way to end a grinding conflict that has strained global economies and escalated tensions with a nuclear-armed Russia.
The Domestic and Global Backlash
Trump’s remarks have reignited domestic debates in the US. Progressive lawmakers like Senator Bernie Sanders condemned the exclusion of Zelenskiy as “reckless,” while conservative allies like Senator Lindsey Graham praised Trump’s “bold leadership” (The Hill, 2025). The “fake news” Trump referenced—outlets like CNN and The New York Times—swiftly criticized his Russia comments, accusing him of appeasement (NYT, February 21, 2025). Public opinion remains divided, with a Pew Research poll showing 48% of Americans favoring continued Ukraine support, down from 60% in 2022 (Pew, 2025).
Globally, the fallout is equally contentious. France and the UK, key Ukraine backers, have signaled discomfort with Trump’s unilateralism, though neither has outright opposed the talks (The Guardian, 2025). Putin, meanwhile, has remained coy, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating only that Russia is “open to dialogue” (TASS, 2025). The stakes are high: a misstep could embolden Moscow, while a breakthrough might reshape the post-war order.
What Lies Ahead
As of February 21, 2025, Trump’s strategy is in its infancy, and its success hinges on variables beyond his control—Putin’s willingness to compromise, Ukraine’s reaction, and the response of US allies. Zelenskiy, for his part, faces a narrowing path. Excluded from key talks, he must either double down on European support or brace for a deal imposed from afar. Trump, undeterred, seems poised to press his case, betting that his dealmaking instincts can resolve a war that has defied resolution for three years.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has entered a new chapter, one defined by Trump’s audacious gamble. Whether it leads to peace, capitulation, or chaos remains uncertain. For now, the world watches as the US president charts a course that could redefine the geopolitical landscape—or unravel it entirely.
