In recent weeks, Donald Trump achieved a diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East — helping to broker a cease-fire deal in the Gaza Strip that brought together multiple regional players. By contrast, his efforts to resolve the war in Ukraine with Vladimir Putin remain stalled, suggesting that the two crises differ fundamentally in their leverage, actors and strategic constraints.
First, the Gaza deal. According to analysts, the truce in Gaza succeeded because the parties involved had clear incentives to de-escalate, and because Trump brought visible U.S. muscle and mediation to the table. The conflict’s geography is limited, the combatants fewer, and the damage on all sides high — which created a ripe environment for a deal. Trump and his Middle East team capitalised on this confluence, negotiating directly with Israel, Hamas intermediaries and regional states who were ready to stop the bleeding.
On the Ukraine front, by contrast, the war is vast, drawn out, and involves large standing armies, deep territorial stakes, and one of the world’s major powers — Russia. As one Foreign Policy analysis put it, though a proposed summit between Trump and Putin in Budapest was floated, expectations were low because Moscow had shown little willingness to budge.
Foreign Policy
+1
Meanwhile, Russia reiterated its core demands: Ukraine must make major concessions for peace.
Reuters
What explains this contrast? Several key factors:
- Leverage and urgency.
In Gaza, Israel had suffered heavy losses, Hamas hostages were a live issue, and regional states feared spill-over. This created urgency and leverage for Trump’s deal. In Ukraine, by contrast, Russia is dug in, has substantial military capability, and faces less domestic urgency to compromise. Without acute pressure, Putin has less immediate incentive to strike a bargain. - Number and nature of actors.
The Gaza deal involved a limited number of parties whose interests were aligned around de-escalation (Israel, Hamas proxies, Egyptian and Qatari mediators). Negotiations were achievable. Ukraine entails multiple actors (Ukraine, Russia, U.S., NATO, European states) with divergent war aims. Aligning them — let alone Russia’s willingness to compromise — is far more complex. - Stakes and asymmetry.
In Gaza, the devastation on both sides and a clear humanitarian cost made a deal palatable. In Ukraine, the stakes involve territorial sovereignty, national survival, and global order. Russia views Ukraine not just as a battlefield but zone of existential interest. That makes it harder for Trump to induce Putin to make meaningful concessions. - Strategic clarity vs open-ended conflict.
The Gaza conflict had a clearer endpoint: hostage release, humanitarian pause, border rearrangements. Ukraine’s war is open-ended, with shifting frontlines and no obvious endpoint. Diplomacy in such a context is inherently more difficult. A summit alone is unlikely to deliver a breakthrough, as analysts caution.
Foreign Policy
+1 - U.S. domestic and international posture.
Trump’s success in the Middle East also reflected a unified U.S. posture with regional allies and a clear objective: stabilize Gaza. In Ukraine, the U.S. role is more contested domestically and internationally. Trump himself has signalled doubts about whether Ukraine can win the war.
AP News
Such uncertainty undermines his leverage as a mediator.
In short: Trump made progress in Gaza because the conditions were ripe — clear incentives to end the fighting, manageable number of actors, and tangible outcomes within reach. With Ukraine, the opposite applies: entrenched positions, far-reaching stakes, and a combative adversary in Russia unwilling or unable to countenance major concessions.
Looking ahead, if Trump wants to replicate his Gaza success in Ukraine, he would need to generate or support a new dynamic: increase leverage over Russia (e.g., via coordinated sanctions or military pressure), align the many actors more tightly, and offer an internationally credible peace framework. Without that, the war in Ukraine may remain beyond his reach.