Translation into U.S. English:

On March 18, 2025, Donald Trump, President of the United States, held a phone call with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, which quickly became the focus of global attention. According to Trump, the nearly two-hour conversation was "positive and productive" and resulted in a supposed agreement for a 30-day "energy and infrastructure ceasefire" in the context of the war in Ukraine. On his social media, the businessman spared no grandiosity, claiming this was the first step toward ending a conflict that "should never have started" and that he, had he been in power, would have prevented. However, just hours later, Russian attacks on hospitals and energy infrastructure in Ukraine exposed the fragility of this supposed breakthrough, once again highlighting Trump's tendency to prioritize theatrics over tangible results.

This call, presented as a diplomatic milestone, is just the latest example of how Trump's politics rely on a self-promotion machine that promises much but delivers little. Since his return to the White House, he has sold the idea that his mere presence would be enough to resolve global conflicts and revitalize the U.S. economy. Yet a deeper analysis reveals that his actions, including this negotiation with Putin, tend to generate more noise than solutions, leaving behind a trail of inflated expectations and economic and geopolitical consequences that could be more harmful than beneficial for the United States and the world.
An Agreement That Wasn’t

The supposed "energy ceasefire" agreed upon during the call fell apart almost immediately. While Trump celebrated his achievement on Truth Social, Ukraine reported new Russian attacks on civilian and energy targets in Sumy and Dnipropetrovsk, just hours after the conversation. Ukrainian President Zelensky was quick to point out the inconsistency, accusing Putin of breaking his word and hinting that Trump's promises lacked real substance. This episode is not an anomaly but a constant in Trump's track record: grandiose announcements that dissolve due to a lack of follow-through or the ability to enforce results.

Trump's proposal, which according to the Kremlin included a 30-day pause in attacks on energy infrastructure, was never a full ceasefire, as Ukraine and its European allies had requested. Instead of addressing the root causes of the conflict or pressuring Russia for a comprehensive truce, Trump opted for a limited gesture, easy to promote but insufficient to change the course of the war. This superficiality not only disappoints those hoping for real progress but also calls into question the credibility of the United States as a mediator, weakening its position on the international stage.
The Economic Cost of Bluster

Beyond the war in Ukraine, Trump's policy, focused on headlines rather than sustainable strategies, has a direct impact on the U.S. economy, which he claims to be saving. His approach of negotiating directly with Putin, excluding key allies like the European Union and NATO, risks straining vital trade relationships. Europe, which has invested billions in supporting Ukraine and diversifying its energy sources following the Russian invasion, could see this move as a betrayal, potentially leading to economic retaliation or reduced cooperation with Washington.

Moreover, Trump's rhetoric about "ending the war quickly" ignores the complexities of the conflict and the long-term implications of conceding ground to Russia. If, as some reports suggest, his plan includes recognizing Crimea as Russian territory or forcing Ukraine to give up occupied territories, this would not only perpetuate instability in the region but could also discourage foreign investment in Eastern Europe, disrupting global supply chains in which the U.S. has a direct interest. Far from strengthening the U.S. economy, these decisions could create uncertainty, increase energy costs, and weaken the dollar as a global reserve currency—something Trump himself claims to want to protect.
A Theatrical Figure in a Real World

Trump is, above all, a master of spectacle. His political career is marked by grandiose promises—"I’ll end the war in a day," he said during the campaign—that clash with the reality of a world that does not bend to his will. The call with Putin is no exception: a carefully staged event to project leadership, but one that lacks the substance needed to achieve its goals. This pattern is not new. During his first term, his summits with Kim Jong-un generated headlines but did not halt North Korea's nuclear program. Now, his attempt to resolve the Ukrainian conflict seems to follow the same script: lots of publicity, few results.

The problem is that this approach is not only ineffective but deeply damaging. In Ukraine, the lack of serious commitment prolongs the suffering of millions. In the United States, his obsession with quick, visible victories could lead to improvised economic policies—such as poorly calculated tariffs or cuts in support for allies—that end up costing jobs and stability. And globally, his unilateralist style fuels the perception of a country that prioritizes its leader's ego over global cooperation, opening the door for powers like China or Russia to gain influence at the expense of the West.
Conclusion: Pain as a Legacy

The call between Trump and Putin is a microcosm of his leadership: a mix of boldness and emptiness that promises to save the world while sowing more chaos. Unable to fulfill his promises, this theatrical figure walks on a global stage where his gestures, though flashy, lack real weight. Along the way, the pain he leaves—in Ukraine, in the U.S. economy, in the trust of allies—could be his most enduring legacy. Far from being the savior he proclaims, Trump seems destined to prove, once again, that spectacle is not enough to govern a world in crisis.