First, President Trump muscled Volodymyr Zelensky into accepting, without security guarantees or other preconditions, a 30-day ceasefire in the brutal war that Vladimir Putin has been waging against Ukraine for more than three years.
Next, President Trump sent a message asking Mr. Putin if he was willing to do the same.
"We agree with the proposal to cease hostilities," the Russian ruler said at a Moscow press conference last week. "But we have to bear in mind that this ceasefire must be aimed at a long-lasting peace, and it must look at the root causes of the crisis."
Allow me to translate: He said no.
Mr. Putin then met with Aleksandr Lukashenko, president of Belarus, a Russian vassal state, while Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump's Special Envoy, was made to cool his heels for eight hours. Do I need to translate that message?
When Mr. Witkoff finally was permitted to enter the Kremlin, Mr. Putin presented him with a list of demands – concessions he wants in advance of a ceasefire which would make Ukraine more vulnerable to future aggression.
So, now it's show time – time for Mr. Trump to show his mettle by putting maximum pressure on Russia, an American adversary, as he has on Ukraine, a nation that wants nothing more than to be an American ally.
On a Tuesday phone call, Messrs. Trump and Putin agreed to "an energy and infrastructure ceasefire." Does that mean Ukrainian kindergartens and hospitals are still fair game? We should know within hours.
Of this you can be sure: The dictators in Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang – all of them making contributions to Mr. Putin's war against Ukraine – are watching this test of Mr. Trump's strength, will, and leadership. The outcome will guide their future actions.
Because the president's approach to problem-solving is deal-making, he has positioned himself as the intermediary between Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelensky.
But between Vladmir and Volodymyr – the former a dictator, the latter a president elected in a multiparty democracy – there is no moral equivalence.
Mr. Zelensky is fighting a defensive war. For him, winning means Ukraine retains its sovereign independence, expels Russian invaders from Ukrainian lands, and welcomes home the thousands of Ukrainian children that Mr. Putin has kidnapped and taken to Russia for brainwashing and forcible adoption.
Mr. Putin, by contrast, is fighting a war of conquest. For him, winning means turning Ukraine into a colony or, failing that, a vassal like Belarus.
I don't think Mr. Trump – or anyone else – can put Russia and Ukraine on a "path to peace." Predators don't make peace with their prey. What is achievable is a cessation of hostilities leading to a frozen conflict.
For how long can the conflict remain frozen? The conflict between the two Koreas has been on ice for 72 years – thanks to the United States.
Freezing the conflict would mean that Russian troops continue to illegally occupy about 18% of Ukraine's territory, along with Crimea, conquered and annexed in 2014.
But it would also mean that Ukraine survives as a political entity and a unique culture, with most Ukrainians not forced to live under the jackboot of a former KGB lieutenant colonel.
Such an outcome would not represent a victory for justice. But it would be preferable to the bloody status quo.
If Mr. Trump were to bring this about, he would deserve plaudits. And he would be able to turn his full energies to the many other foreign policy crises he's inherited from President Biden.
Last week, Mr. Trump warned that he can "do things" that would be "devastating for Russia."
Researchers at my think tank, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, have compiled a list of economic sanctions that would bite like a crocodile rather than a mosquito. Sticking with the animal metaphors, the sanctions would eat into Russia's only cash cow, its oil revenues.
To add pressure, Mr. Trump could increase the flow of weapons to Ukraine and remove restrictions – imposed by President Biden – on the use of those weapons to strike targets inside Russia.
Would that induce Mr. Putin to agree to a ceasefire without preconditions?
Many military analysts believe he's running low on munitions and has insufficient human cannon fodder to replace the corpses he's been laying down to take additional inches of Ukrainian soil. So, he may see a temporary ceasefire as in his interest, though he's shrewd enough not to admit that.
Should there be a ceasefire, Ukraine would then need to rearm to the gills, to turn itself into (last animal metaphor for today, I promise) a porcupine – difficult for the predator to swallow.
The Europeans – the Germans in particular – should foot the bill. They could also spend the $300 billion in frozen Russian funds being held in Europe.
Stationing European peacekeepers – British and French in particular – along the current lines of control could help keep the conflict from reigniting.
As for Mr. Putin, he'd claim that he'd not spilled blood and spent treasure in vain because he had enlarged Mother Russia and established a firm land bridge to Crimea, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based.
Would Ukraine, America, and our European allies need to recognize these Russian conquests? No, just as the U.S. and most Western nations never recognized the Soviet takeover of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940 – nations that now fear what Mr. Putin will do to them should he defeat Ukraine.
A ceasefire leading to a frozen conflict would give Ukrainians time to rest and rebuild, always keeping in mind: Si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war).
That is a more trustworthy "security guarantee" than anything written on a scrap of paper.