Three years ago, Russia launched a fratricidal ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine, triggering the bloodiest European war since 1945. Planned as a swift reminder of Russia’s red lines, the conflict turned into a grinding war of attrition. Ukraine, resilient and armed with Western support, stalled Russia’s advances. A thousand days later, no clear winners have emerged — Ukraine is devastated, Russia weakened, Europe fragmented, the US frustrated, and global economies are suffering.Russia is now gaining on the battlefield, holding a fifth of Ukraine’s territory, with its nuclear arsenal looming as a threat. Even as hundreds of thousands perished in the heart of Europe, what was surprising was the absence of serious peace efforts. European leaders failed to activate the Minsk accords of 2014-15, which could have facilitated peace with German and French guarantees.Other initiatives—from Switzerland, Turkey, China, and India—were limited in ambition or scope. The geopolitical reality was that weakening Russia through a proxy war suited the West, and any workable peace deal required US will, apart from Russian buy-in.Also Read | Zelenskyy says he is open to leaving presidency for Ukraine’s NATO membershipThe art of the hurried dealBut the contours of a peace framework are now emerging. If the endgame has a name, call it Donald Trump. Since assuming office on January 20, Trump 2.0 has upended the global order and reversed US foreign policy. If his administration represents a far-right disruption within the US, it embodies an impulse to reshape the global order with economic coercion accompanied by shock-and-awe diplomacy. Trump sought to withdraw from Afghanistan during his first term but had to leave the endgame to his successor. That experience drives him to settle Ukraine’s war on his own timeline, perhaps spurred also by the prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize.Though Trump’s campaign promise to resolve Ukraine’s war in 24 hours was bluster, his administration has show99n delight in overriding entrenched positions. His aversion to military entanglements is matched by his enthusiasm for weaponising tariffs. But for all the chaos his presidency unleashes, Trump could spell an end to the shooting wars.Trump’s team acknowledges that the war is a consequence of America’s post-Cold War push for NATO expansion, pursued in a heady unipolar moment of unchecked US dominance. The West ignored Russia’s pushback in Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014). Ukraine became a proxy in this big power contest, and now, geopolitical expediency dictates its fate.Story continues below this adTrump understands the deal must be struck directly between the US and Russia—between him and Putin, strongman to strongman. Including other stakeholders in peace talks would delay deals. Putin, dominant on the battlefield, has waited to negotiate with Trump, who will operate in a realist framework rather than invoke a rules-based order. The likely outcome is a ceasefire followed by a peace deal resembling Versailles after WWI or Yalta after WWII—where major powers carved out spheres of influence.Also Read | How Trump’s pro-Russia turn has left Ukraine, Europe ‘stunned’The terms of peaceEven before formal talks began, US terms were evident. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth signalled that Washington would not push maximalist demands, instead conceding two of Putin’s key conditions: Ukraine would not join NATO, and its pre-2014 borders would not be restored. So Crimea’s annexation would stand, while Russia’s control over four eastern oblasts (map) would be subject to negotiation. In return, sanctions against Russia would be lifted, and Moscow would not object to Western Ukraine joining the EU or demand regime change in Kyiv.The trickiest issue is security guarantees for Ukraine. Russia rejects peacekeeping troops, even under non-NATO flags. While Washington’s Ukraine policy appears inconsistent, its goal is clear: end the war. The early deal will require compromises—not necessarily a ‘just and sustainable’ peace, but an expedient one.Story continues below this adTalks began on February 18 in Riyadh, a deliberate move away from traditional European venues like Geneva. The ‘Riyadh reset’ signifies Trump’s clever prioritisation of Saudi Arabia as a geopolitical mediator, not just in Ukraine but also for Gaza.Putin’s envoys were at the table with Trump’s team—Ukrainian and European leaders were not. A Trump-Putin summit in Riyadh will likely finalise the deal, starting with a ceasefire before a formal peace agreement is reached.Europe in disarrayTrump’s moves have left Europe reeling. At the Munich Security Conference, US Vice President JD Vance spoke bluntly of Europe’s decline. Two emergency summits in Paris reflected the panic: Europe faces a ‘two-front situation,’ with Russian aggression on one side and American hostility on the other. France’s Emmanuel Macron and Britain’s Keir Starmer will soon travel to Washington to plead their case, while Germany’s new chancellor could follow as soon as the dust settles on a bruising election.Also Read | Amid US-Russia talks, India’s shift on Ukraine peace process: ‘Two parties’ to ‘parties concerned’In Ukraine, Zelensky faces battlefield losses and Trump’s trolling. The US president sent his special envoy, Keith Kellogg, to Kyiv to humour the “modestly successful comedian” before dismissing Zelensky as a “dictator.” Even before Zelensky suggested Trump was swayed by Russian disinformation, he had effectively lost any influence over negotiations.Story continues below this adAdding to Ukraine’s woes, Trump wants repayment for the $350 billion the US has allegedly spent on the war. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was tasked with negotiating access to Ukraine’s strategic mineral reserves in return for American support. This aligns with Trump’s vision of geopolitics as real estate transactions, like his ideas to buy Greenland or control the Panama Canal or Gaza or even Canada.A global realignmentThe Ukraine settlement will be part of a broader strategic realignment. The US must recalibrate its relationship with Russia as it faces a greater challenge: China’s belligerent rise. The war has pushed Moscow closer to Beijing, but a resolution could create an opportunity to loosen that bond. Trump’s approach may mirror Nixon’s Cold War diplomacy, which sought to prise China from the Soviet Union—though this time, the roles are reversed.For much of the world, an end to the war would bring economic relief. Sanctions have disrupted global markets, food supplies, and energy security. A resolution would stabilise energy flows, restore grain exports, and ease inflationary pressures. Trump’s presidency has undoubtedly introduced volatility, but it may also deliver peace in Ukraine. Whether this resolution proves lasting—or merely leads to another frozen conflict—will be decided by two strongmen in Riyadh.Ajay Bisaria is a former diplomat who was India’s ambassador to Pakistan, Canada, Poland, and Lithuania. He is a Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation