Thirdly, the US’s approach of initially concentrating on Ukraine may have been a miscalculation. The White House came to view President Zelensky as an impediment to peace. Western diplomats recognize that the Ukrainian government was slow to grasp the magnitude of change that Mr. Trump’s presidency brought. However, the US pressure on Kyiv, which culminated in the now-notorious Oval Office confrontation where Mr. Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, reprimanded the Ukrainian leader, consumed valuable time, resources, and political capital. This also strained transatlantic relations, placing Europe and the US at odds—another diplomatic hurdle that required resolution. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin sat back and observed, waiting for his moment. Fourthly, the inherent complexity of the conflict complicates any possible resolution. Ukraine initially proposed an interim ceasefire limited to air and naval engagements, believing this would be easier to monitor. However, during last week’s discussions in Jeddah, the US insisted that any immediate ceasefire must encompass the extensive 1,200 km front line in the east, which significantly complicated logistics for verifying any ceasefire. Mr. Putin promptly rejected this proposal. Even Mr. Putin’s concession to the more modest proposal of halting attacks on energy facilities is fraught with challenges. The specifics of this agreement are expected to dominate the technical negotiations set to take place in Saudi Arabia on Monday, with military and energy experts crafting detailed lists of power plants, whether nuclear or otherwise, that should be protected. They will also need to determine which weaponry systems must not be utilized. However, distinguishing between energy and other civilian infrastructure could be a lengthy process. Notably, Ukraine and Russia are not communicating directly; instead, they are negotiating bilaterally with the US, which commits to mediating between both sides. This again adds to the timeline. Fifthly, the US’s emphasis on the economic advantages of a ceasefire diverted attention from the primary goal of ending hostilities. Mr. Trump has been preoccupied with negotiating a framework that would grant US companies access to critical minerals in Ukraine. Some interpreted this as the US investing in Ukraine’s future, while others considered it as exploitation of the country’s natural resources. President Zelensky initially contended that he could only agree to such a deal if the US provided Ukraine with security assurances to deter further Russian aggression. The White House countered, stating that the presence of American mining companies and personnel would be a sufficient deterrent. Ultimately, Mr. Zelensky relented, agreeing to the minerals deal without security guarantees. Nevertheless, the US has yet to finalize the agreement, aiming to renegotiate terms, potentially adding provisions for access to or even control over Ukrainian nuclear power facilities. Ending wars can indeed be intricate and time-consuming. Trump’s efforts have admittedly brought progress, yet the pace and simplicity he anticipated have not materialized. In December 2018, while campaigning for the presidency, Volodymyr Zelensky expressed the notion that negotiations with Vladimir Putin would be quite straightforward. “You need to talk in a very simple way,” he remarked to Ukrainian journalist Dmytro Gordon. “‘What do you want, what are your conditions?’ And I’d tell them: ‘Here are our points.’ We would find common ground somewhere in the middle.” Based on the last two months’ evidence, it appears this task may be far more challenging than anticipated.