In recent months, Donald Trump has promoted ambitious diplomatic initiatives—championing a “peace drive” to end the war in Ukraine while simultaneously advancing a high-profile Middle East agenda. But as the finer details emerge, the Ukraine track is proving far more problematic than the Mideast one, and its setbacks now threaten to erode his broader credibility and momentum in the region.
The Ukraine push: big talk, big barriers
Trump set the tone early by committing to broker a cease-fire between Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, framing it as a foreign-policy win akin to previous Middle East efforts. But recent developments suggest the peace drive is faltering. U.S. officials warned they may abandon the effort entirely unless progress appears quickly.
Reuters
+1
Trump’s own comments reveal a waning enthusiasm. Following a phone call with Putin, he likened the conflict to two children fighting and said we may be “better off letting them fight for a while”.
The Washington Post
What’s going wrong? Key structural issues are emerging:
Russia remains unwilling to make meaningful concessions. Cease-fire offers focus on energy and infrastructure strikes but sidestep the core territorial and political demands.
The Guardian
Ukraine, for its part, remains deeply sceptical of any deal that would trade sovereignty or membership in alliances for peace.
Trump appears caught between two contradictory impulses: appealing to his base’s “peace deal” narrative while also catering to hawkish voices demanding tougher posture against Moscow.
The Wall Street Journal
Because the war in Ukraine is large in scale, multilayered, and involves NATO, Europe and Russia, there are far more moving parts than in other diplomatic arenas.
Why the Middle East trajectory still seems stronger
By contrast, Trump’s Middle East agenda—particularly efforts related to the Gaza Strip-Israeli-Arab dynamic—has thus far allowed more visible progress and fewer structural obstacles. The geography is more contained, the players fewer, and the objectives framed with greater clarity (cease-fires, hostage releases, reconstruction). While still far from a comprehensive resolution, these efforts allow tangible “wins” that feed positive messaging.
These successes matter: they bolster Trump’s image as a deal-maker and provide a counterbalance to the Ukraine front. They also secure his influence among partners in the region who value diplomatic engagement.
But Ukraine troubles threaten to spill-over into the Middle East
Here’s the growing danger: as the Ukraine effort stalls, it undermines Trump’s reputation for diplomatic effectiveness — reputation which the Middle East push depends on. If partners perceive his Ukraine drive as overreaching or naïvely handled, confidence in his Mideast initiatives may erode. A few ways this plays out:
Regional leaders may question whether the U.S. still has the bandwidth, credibility and coherence to deliver on their own issues.
If Europe grows frustrated with Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine, trans-Atlantic alignment may weaken—undermining joint Middle East strategies that rely on Western coalitions.
Domestically, lack of progress in Ukraine gives critics ammunition to argue Trump is inconsistent or lacks a coherent foreign-policy framework, complicating his role as mediator elsewhere.
Conclusion: A balancing act under pressure
Trump entered 2025 with bold diplomatic aspirations — to end wars and reboot U.S. global engagement. But as the Ukraine peace drive confronts harsh realities— entrenched interests, minimal leverage, and divided partners—his broader strategic posture is under strain. The Middle East push may still hold promise, but it no longer stands alone. Its fate may now hinge on how or whether he navigates the Ukraine impasse. If he cannot demonstrate results there, the ripple effects may compromise his wider foreign-policy brand.
In essence: the easier path in the Middle East is starting to depend on resolve in the far harder one of Ukraine. And that linkage may prove the undoing of both.