Majority Back Trump’s Efforts to Resolve Russia-Ukraine Conflict, but Doubts Remain on Zelenskyy: Epoch Readers Survey

As the Trump administration persists in its attempts to negotiate an end to the Russia–Ukraine conflict, a recent poll by Epoch Times indicates substantial approval for these diplomatic efforts among its readership.

The poll, which gathered responses from over 18,800 participants, shows significant backing for President Donald Trump’s foreign policy initiatives, including his insistence that NATO allies increase their contributions and his direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Nonetheless, there appears to be considerable division regarding certain policies, particularly those involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This survey was conducted just days before the contentious meeting with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on February 28.

High-Stakes Diplomacy and ‘America First’

Trump’s approach to foreign policy during both his first and second terms remains distinct, transactional, and divisive, largely influenced by his “America First” philosophy. This strategy emphasizes U.S. economic and security interests over conventional diplomacy and multilateral partnerships, often challenging established global conventions.

In his second term, he has escalated his deal-making tactics—assertive with allies and unyielding with adversaries. His “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran aims to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weaponry. Concurrently, he has intensified demands that NATO allies fulfill their defense spending obligations, alerting European nations that failure to pay their fair share could jeopardize U.S. military support against Russian threats.

Additionally, Trump has revived expansionist rhetoric, suggesting the annexation of Greenland, proposing Canada as a possible 51st state, and openly discussing reclaiming the Panama Canal if China’s influence isn’t curtailed. His threats of tariffs remain a central element of reshaping global trade, targeting friends and foes alike to reduce America’s $918 billion trade deficit.

On the issue of Ukraine, he has notably altered U.S. policy, opting for direct dialogue with Putin with the aim of concluding the war. He has suggested economic collaboration with Russia and reinstating Moscow in the G7, reversing its expulsion in 2014 over Crimea. While supporters view this as a pragmatic shift, critics argue it represents a dangerous concession to an aggressive foe.

Data from the Epoch Times poll reveals a strong positive response to Trump’s foreign relations management, with 81 percent approval—64 percent strongly approving and 17 percent somewhat. Conversely, 16 percent disapprove (12 percent strongly, 4 percent somewhat), and 3 percent remain neutral, hinting at underlying reservations despite overall high support.

NATO Allies and Funding for Ukraine

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), formed after World War II to combat Soviet expansion, continues to serve as the primary defensive military alliance globally. Trump has frequently critiqued member countries for not reaching the advised defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP, contending that American taxpayers unfairly bear a disproportionate share of the alliance’s collective defense responsibilities.

In addition to urging allies to fulfill their spending commitments, Trump asserts that European NATO countries should allocate additional resources to Ukraine. He estimates that European nations have contributed roughly $100 billion to Kyiv, compared to the United States’ $300 billion. Trump advocates for European NATO allies to enhance their financial support to create a more balanced approach.

“We think it has to equalize,” Trump stated on February 21 in the Oval Office. “In other words, they have to come up with more money, because it has a big effect on Europe. It doesn’t have much of an effect on us because we have a big beautiful ocean in between.”

The Epoch Times poll reflects widespread agreement on the need for NATO to bolster support for Ukraine, with 88 percent approval—76 percent strongly and 12 percent somewhat. Disapproval stands at 6 percent, while 6 percent are neutral, indicating lingering skepticism despite the overall consensus.

Leveraging Ukraine’s Resources for Reconstruction

Trump has voiced concerns about the substantial U.S. taxpayer funds utilized for Ukraine’s defense since the onset of the Russian invasion three years ago, asserting that Kyiv needs to reciprocate.

He has outlined a potential economic agreement allowing the U.S. access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and other vital resources used in aerospace, defense, and nuclear industries, positioning it as a method for Kyiv to repay American assistance previously extended under the last administration.

Premium Picks

Zelenskyy has emphasized that any such arrangement would necessitate U.S. security assurances, which Kyiv considers essential. Trump, however, has been hesitant to extend these guarantees, instead arguing that Europe should take the primary role. He contends that U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s mineral sector would act as a deterrent against Russian aggression, effectively providing “automatic security.”

Nevertheless, discussions regarding the deal have reportedly stalled, at least for the time being. Zelenskyy visited Washington on February 28 to engage with Trump and other administration officials, resulting in a tense exchange in the Oval Office. Following that meeting, Trump noted that he has concluded Zelenskyy isn’t prepared for peace “as long as America is involved because he believes our participation gives him a significant advantage.”

Trump expressed a desire for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, inviting Zelenskyy to return when he is ready for peace talks.

According to the Epoch Times poll, a strong 82 percent of respondents approve of Trump’s plan to utilize Ukraine’s natural resources towards peace efforts, with 66 percent strongly in favor and 16 percent somewhat supportive. Opposition is relatively low at 13 percent, while 5 percent are neutral, suggesting a generally favorable perspective on this initiative.

Direct Negotiations With Putin

Trump’s approach to resolving the Russia–Ukraine conflict focuses on direct, bilateral talks with Putin, prioritizing a swift conclusion over traditional U.S. foreign policy protocols or the full involvement of Ukraine and European partners.

Critics caution that Trump’s strategy might embolden Putin, undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, and overlook European interests. Supporters argue, conversely, that it represents a pragmatic, outcome-oriented approach playing to Trump’s strength as an unpredictable negotiator capable of breaking existing stalemates.

Support for Trump’s management of peace discussions with Putin is notably high at 76 percent, with 54 percent strongly approving and 22 percent somewhat supportive. Yet, 18 percent disapprove, and 6 percent are neutral, indicating somewhat more divided opinions when compared to other policies.

Moreover, Trump’s broader initiative to rebuild U.S.–Russia relations garners 77 percent approval (52 percent strongly and 25 percent somewhat). Disapproval stands at 16 percent (11 percent strongly, 5 percent somewhat), and 7 percent remain neutral, reflecting strong backing but also a hint of caution.

Criticism of Zelenskyy, Exclusion From Negotiations

Trump has been vocal in criticizing Zelenskyy’s management of the Russia–Ukraine war, attributing the ongoing conflict to his leadership, questioning his capabilities, and accusing him of leveraging U.S. support without delivering tangible outcomes. This perspective aligns with Trump’s overall skepticism regarding Ukraine’s geopolitical significance and his preference for negotiating directly with Putin, effectively diminishing Kyiv’s involvement in the discussions.

He has derided Zelenskyy, calling him “the greatest salesman on Earth,” who “takes home $100 billion” but fails to resolve the war, at one point labeling him a “dictator” before retracting the comment. Trump has also minimized Zelenskyy’s relevance in forthcoming peace negotiations, asserting that Ukraine’s leadership has failed to achieve progress after three years of conflict, in stark contrast to the “very good talks” he claims to have had with Putin.

Trump abruptly ended a meeting with Zelenskyy in Washington on February 28 after a heated exchange in the Oval Office, where he accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War III.” The Ukrainian president departed without finalizing the crucial minerals deal, casting uncertainty over its future.

Polling indicates that while a considerable portion of respondents supports Trump’s criticism of Zelenskyy, the approval rating for this stance is lower than for other policies. Approval stands at 62 percent (41 percent strongly, 21 percent somewhat) against 27 percent disapproval (19 percent strong, 8 percent somewhat), revealing a more contentious response compared to other foreign policy matters.

Support for excluding Zelenskyy from negotiations presents an even more divided view, with 50 percent approval against 32 percent disapproval, and 18 percent remaining neutral—indicating significant concerns about sidelining Ukraine in the peace process.

Write-in Responses: Key Cease-Fire Priorities

Readers provided write-in comments highlighting their views on the most vital aspects for cease-fire discussions. Prominent among these are Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and the necessary security guarantees to prevent future conflicts. Some attribute NATO expansion to have instigated the war, insisting on Ukrainian neutrality, while others argue that NATO membership is crucial to deter further aggression from Russia.

The status of occupied territories also stands out as a significant issue. Many believe Ukraine must reclaim all territory lost since 2014, while others propose negotiated settlements or referendums for Russian-speaking areas. Some advocate for a demilitarized buffer zone or international oversight, while others caution that conceding land to Russia could set a perilous precedent.

Another focal point is the need for a comprehensive peace agreement, with calls for binding security commitments, European-led peacekeeping, and rigorous enforcement to forestall a resurgence of hostilities. Many respondents emphasize the urgency of stopping the war to save lives, though there are differing opinions on whether a cease-fire should happen immediately or be contingent on broader terms.

Financial accountability and economic stability weigh heavily in respondents’ minds. Some desire stricter oversight on international aid, repayment plans, or European-led reconstruction, while others express concerns over corruption, advocating for a cessation of U.S. funding altogether, arguing that such assistance prolongs conflict and diverts resources away from domestic needs.

Lastly, a smaller but significant group expresses concerns regarding Ukraine’s political future, advocating for new elections to ensure legitimate governance and transparency. These varied responses illustrate the complex landscape surrounding the pursuit of a lasting cease-fire, given the sharp divides concerning security, sovereignty, and international involvement.

Overall, the Epoch Times poll underscores substantial backing for Trump’s strategy in addressing the Russia–Ukraine conflict, even though it challenges established diplomatic norms. Yet, the data also illuminate areas of contention where more controversial policies—such as excluding Zelenskyy—are met with increased disapproval or neutrality, indicating ongoing uncertainties.