Cowboy politics

US president Donald Trump pledged to halt the war in Ukraine within twenty-four hours of taking office on January 20,2025. That declaration became the centerpiece of his campaign and fueled hopes of swift peace. However today, two hundred days on but there is neither truce nor negotiation in sight. This conflict has persisted since 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. At that moment Western nations largely treated the crisis as a regional dispute. That hands-off posture allowed Moscow to consolidate territory, setting the stage for a protracted struggle that has cost thousands of lives. European countries and the US applied only symbolic sanctions, failing to impose the full costs of aggression. Trump’s failure to deliver on this vow reflects a mismatch between boastful pledges and diplomatic realities. From Washington to Moscow, no adversary has moved toward compromise under pressure alone. Russia has been sanctioned by the western nations but not in ways that would seriously strangulate the economy. Diplomatic overtures have gone unanswered as each side entrenches positions shaped by national narratives. The same pattern emerged in the Gaza conflict where Trump vowed consequences on Hamas for any hostage still held by militant groups on inauguration day. Scores remain captive, battered negotiations have stalled and violence has spread to neighbouring theatres without any major breakthrough. The humanitarian toll in Gaza has intensified as civilians bear the brunt of stalled diplomacy. This record underlines a broader dynamic; a false bravado that masks a weakness in policy execution. Trump’s impulse to command global order meets the bitter reality that entrenched conflicts resist shortcuts. His administration’s style prizes media spectacle and bold sound bites over patient coalition building. Expectations of swift action have morphed into reactive crisis management, feeding public skepticism. Comparisons between Trump and other autocratic leaders of other nations reveal a striking symmetry. The few autocrats around view national power as an extension of personal will. Russian president Vladimir Putin clings to territorial ambition and equates the state with his own desires while Trump reduces economic leverage to unilateral dominance. Both approaches of the two, treat the world as a stage for personal triumph. Gaza’s turmoil stands as a parallel warning. More than eighteen months since hostilities flared, ceasefire calls remain unheeded. Iran and proxy forces in Lebanon and Yemen have widened the crisis through cross-border attacks and rhetoric that defy American pressure, underscoring the limits of leverage. Such setbacks expose a flaw in Trump’s worldview as it reduces multifaceted conflicts to single-player games. Success depends on consent and participation of all parties involved. Schemes that sideline Ukraine or exclude key actors from the table offer no path to durable peace. Arranging talks for Ukrainian ceasefire with Vladimir Putin but without Ukrainian representatives epitomises this flawed logic. It echoes a philosophy that binary ultimatums can override sovereign interests. Any settlement reached without direct Ukrainian input would lack legitimacy and almost certainly collapse under competing claims. All these point to discomforting missteps that serve as lessons that authority rests on shared effort rather than unchecked declarations. When grand statements go unfulfilled, credibility erodes. The deeper challenge facing Trump is to collaborate and respect complex realities even as public confidence in his leadership teeters on the edge.