In the solemn halls of St. Peter’s Basilica, under the shadow of history and mourning, an unexpected pivot may have begun. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump shared a rare and intense conversation ahead of Pope Francis’s funeral, seasoned observers of international affairs found themselves asking a crucial question: Is Trump’s patience with Russia finally wearing out, and could this signal a seismic shift in the trajectory of the Ukraine war?
For months, Trump has projected a delicate balancing act on the Ukraine conflict, publicly criticizing President Joe Biden’s handling of the war while advocating for a “swift peace deal” between Moscow and Kyiv if he returns to the White House. However, his recent sharp rebuke of Russian President Vladimir Putin, made just hours after his meeting with Zelensky, suggests a hardening stance that could carry significant implications.
The encounter in Rome, their first since the Oval Office showdown earlier this year, offered more than a photo opportunity. It may well have marked the beginning of a recalibration in Trump’s posture towards the war and by extension, the broader Republican narrative on Ukraine.
Trump’s Long Balancing Act
Throughout his political career, Donald Trump has maintained a complex, often contradictory relationship with Vladimir Putin. While critics accused him of being overly accommodating to Russia during his presidency, Trump has always framed his approach as pragmatic realism, asserting that cultivating dialogue with Moscow is preferable to escalating conflict.
On Ukraine, Trump has oscillated between admiration for Zelensky’s courage and scepticism over Washington’s mounting financial and military aid to Kyiv. He has lambasted the Biden administration for, in his words, “writing blank checks” without a clear strategy for victory or peace. Yet, Trump has also insisted he could broker a deal to end the war “within 24 hours” if elected again.
Until recently, Trump’s rhetoric implied that he viewed Ukraine’s survival as important but secondary to avoiding a wider US-Russia confrontation. However, Moscow’s escalating missile strikes on Kyiv, including those that coincided with the solemn days before the Vatican funeral, appear to have pushed Trump closer to Ukraine’s corner.
A New Tone in Rome
The 15-minute conversation between Trump and Zelensky, described by the White House as “very productive” and by Zelensky as “very symbolic”, was heavy with meaning. That it occurred moments before honouring a pope known for championing peace made it even more poignant.
Sources close to the Trump team suggest that Zelensky made a persuasive case: Ukraine is not merely defending its territory; it is holding the line for democratic values worldwide. With fresh reports of Russian atrocities, including attacks on civilian infrastructure, the moral dimension of the conflict seems harder for even seasoned pragmatists like Trump to ignore.
In his post-meeting remarks, Trump struck an uncharacteristically pointed tone: “You have to question whether Putin wants peace at all”, he said, adding that “constant escalation cannot be ignored forever”. For a figure who has often emphasized “both sides” perspectives, this marks a significant rhetorical departure.
Could the Tables Turn for Ukraine?
If Trump’s skepticism about Russia’s intentions deepens, Ukraine could find itself with a powerful, if unconventional, ally. Though Trump’s direct political power is currently limited, his influence over the Republican Party, and potentially the White House after 2025, is undeniable.
A Trump who believes that Russia is acting in bad faith could reshape the internal US debate on Ukraine aid and strategy. Republicans who have dragged their feet on supporting Kyiv may find themselves realigning, particularly if Trump frames Ukraine’s resilience as a necessary stance against authoritarian expansionism.
Moreover, Trump’s endorsement of a harder line on Russia could pressure European leaders who have also wavered between solidarity and caution. A transatlantic shift, even partial, would change the strategic calculus for Moscow.
Scepticism and Caution Remain
However, it is important to temper expectations. Trump remains deeply committed to the idea of avoiding “endless wars”. His instinct is to prioritize US interests narrowly defined, and he remains critical of what he views as unchecked defense spending abroad.
Furthermore, Trump’s distrust of the traditional foreign policy establishment. the so-called “deep state”, means he may still resist entangling the United States more deeply in a conflict he perceives as driven by elite agendas.
For Ukraine, this underscores a delicate challenge: winning Trump’s support without triggering his reflexive opposition to anything he deems part of the “globalist consensus”. Zelensky’s ability to personalize Ukraine’s struggle, to make it a battle between individual courage and authoritarian oppression rather than a faceless geopolitical chess match, could be key.
Russia’s Miscalculation?
There is an irony in Russia’s recent actions. In seeking to terrorize Kyiv into submission through indiscriminate strikes, Putin may have inadvertently hardened global resolve against him. Trump’s shift could be part of a larger trend: even leaders sympathetic to a negotiated settlement are beginning to doubt Moscow’s sincerity.
If Trump concludes that Putin is not negotiating in good faith, the window for a brokered peace deal, on Russian terms may close rapidly. Moscow would then face a reinvigorated Ukraine, better armed and politically supported, with new momentum for reclaiming lost territories.
Already, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience. Despite enormous human and material losses, its counteroffensives have regained swathes of occupied land. With more decisive Western backing, Kyiv could push further, not just defending its sovereignty but compelling Russia to accept terms far less favourable than those it once demanded.
The Broader Geopolitical Stakes
The implications extend beyond Ukraine. President Trump, signaling less tolerance for Russian aggression would reverberate across the globe, from Taiwan to Tehran. Autocratic regimes betting on Western fatigue might have to rethink their strategies, signaling less tolerance for Russian aggression would reverberate across the globe, from Taiwan to Tehran. Autocratic regimes betting on Western fatigue might have to rethink their strategies.
Moreover, if Trump lends his formidable political capital to the argument that standing with Ukraine is standing for American values, it could blunt isolationist tendencies within the GOP and fortify bipartisan support for Ukraine for years to come.
In this sense, Trump’s Rome meeting with Zelensky could indeed become historic, not because a peace deal was brokered in the basilica’s shadow, but because it marked the beginning of a new, harder consensus on how to confront Russian aggression.
Conclusion
History often turns on moments that seem, at first, incidental. The handshake between a Ukrainian president and US President Trump in a Vatican Basilica may not have stopped the bombs falling on Kyiv. But it may have helped set in motion a shift in the global political winds.
Donald Trump’s patience with Putin appears to be fraying. Whether this evolution will fully materialize into a new strategy for Ukraine remains to be seen. But if it does, the tables may indeed be turning and Ukraine’s long, harrowing fight for survival could finally be poised to enter a new, more hopeful phase.
The writer is a journalist, columnist specializing in international affairs, and a journalism lecturer with a PhD in journalism. Contact: [email protected]
