The story, both on Ukraine and Iran, is that President Trump wants a 'deal' – and both deals are available – yet he seems nonetheless to have boxed himself in. Trump presents his Administration as being something rougher, meaner, and far less sentimental. It aspires to emerge, apparently, as also something more centralized, coercive, and radical.

In domestic policy, there may be some truth to this categorisation of the Trumpian ethos. In foreign policy, however, Trump tergiversates. The reason is not clear, but the fact of it clouds his prospects in the three areas vital to his 'peace-maker' aspiration – Ukraine, Iran and Gaza.

Whilst it is true that Trump's true mandate derived from rampant economic and social discontent, rather than from his claims to be a peacemaker – yet the two key foreign policy ends remain important to maintaining momentum forward.

One possible answer is that in foreign negotiations, the President needs a grounded and experienced team to support him. And he does not have that.

In advance of sending his Envoy Witkoff to talk to President Putin, General Kellogg, it seems, presented Trump with a Versailles-type Armistice proposal: A vision of Russia on the ropes (i.e. the plan was cast in terms more appropriate to Russian capitulation). Kellogg's proposal implied also that Trump would be doing Putin a 'big favour' – by condescending to offer him a ladder down which to climb from his perch up the Ukraine 'tree'. And this was exactly the line Trump took in January:

Having stated that Russia had lost one million men (in the war), Trump then went on to say that "Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal". He further claimed that Russia's economy was in 'ruins', and most notably, said that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia. In a subsequent Truth Social post, he wrote, "I'm going to do Russia – whose Economy is failing – and President Putin, a very big FAVOR".

The President – duly briefed by his team – may have imagined that he would offer Putin a unilateral ceasefire and, hey presto, would have a quick deal to his credit.

All the premises on which the Kellogg plan was based (Russia's vulnerability to sanctions, huge losses of men, and a stalemated war) were false. Did no one on Trump's team then do any due diligence on the Kellogg strategy? It seems (lazily) to have taken the Korean war as its template, without due consideration of whether it be appropriate, or not.

In the Korean instance, the ceasefire along a Conflict Line preceded political considerations, which came only later. And which remain ongoing – and unresolved – until today.