Former U.S. president Donald Trump has publicly floated a controversial idea aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. He suggested that oil could be priced so low that Russia would be unable to sustain its action, proposing a target of 40 dollars per barrel. He voiced this perspective at a rally attended by supporters, including autoworkers involved in strikes in Michigan. He claimed that cheap oil would create a strategic pressure point that Russia could not withstand, framing the plan as a quick path to peace.
Trump has repeatedly asserted that the Ukraine conflict could be resolved within 24 hours if certain conditions are met. Earlier this year, he elaborated on the mechanics of his plan, saying that he maintains a strong relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and believes a direct approach with Moscow could break the stalemate. He indicated that Moscow would be asked to participate in a negotiated settlement and that Kyiv would be urged to engage actively in the process. In his view, the agreement would involve clear incentives for one side and penalties for the other, designed to accelerate a peace deal.
In September, Zelenskiy signaled that Trump would publicly disclose his strategy for achieving peace in Ukraine, presenting the plan as a roadmap to de-escalation and resolution. The discourse around these proposals has been accompanied by polling in the United States, where public opinion on Zelenskiy has shown shifts. A Gallup poll indicated that Zelenskiy’s standing in the United States had surged past both Trump and President Biden at that time, reflecting the evolving perceptions of leadership and policy among the American electorate.
Observers note that discussions of energy prices and direct negotiations with Russia touch on sensitive geopolitical and economic dynamics. The ideas circulating in political campaigns often merge energy policy with foreign affairs, raising questions about feasibility, market impacts, and the role of U.S. presidential influence on global events. The conversation continues to evolve as public figures propose varied pathways to ending the conflict, each with its own set of supporters, critics, and potential consequences for international relations and energy markets.
As the debate progresses, analysts emphasize the complexity of achieving durable peace in Ukraine. They point to the importance of credible diplomacy, verifiable commitments, and the broader context of sanctions, security guarantees, and humanitarian considerations. The discourse also highlights how domestic political messaging intersects with international strategy, shaping expectations about what a U.S. administration might attempt to influence in Moscow, Kyiv, and beyond.