The Art of the No Deal: Putin and Trump’s Ceasefire Charade

In a much-anticipated phone call on March 18, 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump—acting in his self-appointed role as the world’s foremost dealmaker—discussed a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. What emerged wasn’t a breakthrough in peace negotiations but rather a masterclass in diplomatic smoke and mirrors, a performance best described as The Art of the No Deal.

Putin’s Limited Concession: The Illusion of Restraint

Putin agreed to a 30-day pause on attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, an offer as calculated as it was limited. This temporary reprieve may sound like a gesture of goodwill, but it conveniently dodges the larger reality: Russia’s broader assault on Ukrainian cities, military positions, and civilians remains untouched.

It’s a familiar script — Putin concedes the minimum necessary to appear cooperative while buying time to regroup, rearm, and recalibrate. The move mirrors past strategies: from Syria to Georgia to the Minsk Accords, limited truces have proven to be tactical pauses rather than paths to peace.

Trump’s Premature Victory Lap

No sooner had the call ended than Trump rushed to Truth Social to declare the discussion “very good and productive,” boasting about progress toward a “Complete Ceasefire.” The problem? The “deal” is neither complete nor a ceasefire — it’s a temporary, tactical timeout dressed up as diplomacy.

Ukraine’s President Zelensky, notably absent from this celebratory narrative, remains stuck in an impossible position: pressured to welcome any reduction in attacks while knowing full well the limited ceasefire strengthens Russia’s hand in the long run. Once again, the people of Ukraine find themselves spoken about, but not spoken for.

The Geopolitical Ripple Effect

Beyond Ukraine’s borders, the implications of this diplomatic theatre extend far and wide. NATO allies, already grappling with wavering Western resolve, now face a fresh dilemma: support Ukraine despite Trump’s “peace progress” posturing, or risk looking like warmongers unwilling to embrace diplomacy?

Meanwhile, China watches with interest. If Putin can string along the West with partial concessions, why wouldn’t Beijing try a similar tactic in Taiwan or the South China Sea? The message is clear: endurance outlasts ethics, and “no deal” can be a winning strategy.

Diplomatic Sleight of Hand

Putin’s maneuvering follows a familiar pattern of strategic misdirection:

• Buying time to reorganize forces and repair supply chains.
• Testing Trump’s resolve — probing whether the president will push Ukraine to accept a bad deal to claim a political win.
• Shifting blame to Ukraine if talks collapse, framing Zelensky as the unreasonable one for rejecting a peace charade.

The kicker? Putin’s demand that the US stop military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv all but ensures the process stays frozen. He doesn’t need a deal — he needs the illusion of one.

Trump’s Personal Endgame

Trump’s hunger for a “win” feels less like a statesman’s pursuit of peace and more like a salesman’s bid to close a deal — any deal — that boosts his personal brand. His history of headline-chasing diplomacy (remember North Korea’s “denuclearization” that wasn’t?) suggests this latest performance isn’t about Ukraine. It’s about Trump, the comeback tour.

Whether he’s eyeing another White House run or a legacy-defining photo-op, the political calculus is clear: appearing to broker peace, even a hollow one, could fuel his narrative as the “outsider” who solves problems career politicians can’t.

The Consequences of False Optimism

The danger of this diplomatic charade is clear: it creates the illusion of progress while sabotaging real efforts for peace.

If Trump pressures Ukraine into accepting an unfavorable settlement — or worse, reduces US aid — it could tip the battlefield in Putin’s favor, prolonging the war on Russia’s terms. History warns us: false peace deals don’t prevent wars; they prolong suffering. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

Conclusion: How Many More “No Deals” Can We Afford?

Far from ushering in a real ceasefire, the Putin-Trump call reveals the enduring effectiveness of diplomatic theater. Putin gets to appear flexible without conceding anything of substance, while Trump gets to bask in the glow of a deal that doesn’t exist.

The war in Ukraine, now entering its fourth year, remains a grim testament to the reality that sometimes, the art of avoiding a deal is more damaging than making one.

The question is no longer whether Putin and Trump will reach a genuine agreement — they won’t. The question is: How many more “no deals” can the world afford before Ukraine — and global stability — pay the ultimate price?