U.S. President Donald Trump has ignited fresh controversy after announcing that he would invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to join what he described as a new global “Board of Peace.” The proposal, unveiled during a recent public statement, has drawn sharp criticism from political leaders, analysts, and human rights advocates around the world.
Trump framed the idea as an alternative international platform aimed at reducing global conflict and encouraging dialogue among powerful nations. According to him, the proposed board would bring together influential world leaders to “stop wars before they start” and promote what he called “real peace through strength.”
A Proposal That Raises Alarms
The inclusion of Putin immediately triggered backlash, given Russia’s ongoing role in major international conflicts and its strained relations with the West. Critics argue that inviting Putin to a peace-focused body risks legitimizing aggression and undermining existing international institutions.
“Calling it a ‘Board of Peace’ does not erase the realities on the ground,” one European diplomat said, warning that the move could weaken accountability for violations of international law.
Trump, however, defended his stance, claiming that excluding adversaries only fuels conflict. He insisted that dialogue with rivals is essential to preventing global escalation and said Putin’s participation would be “necessary for real-world peace negotiations.”
Mixed Reactions at Home and Abroad
Reactions within the United States have been deeply divided. Supporters praised Trump for challenging what they see as ineffective global frameworks and for prioritizing direct engagement over confrontation. Some allies argue that unconventional diplomacy is needed in an increasingly unstable world.
Opponents, however, accused Trump of normalizing authoritarian leadership and sidelining democratic values. Several lawmakers expressed concern that such a board could conflict with established international bodies like the United Nations and bypass long-standing diplomatic norms.
Internationally, leaders in Europe and Asia voiced skepticism, questioning the credibility and authority of a peace initiative led outside formal diplomatic channels. Human rights groups warned that the proposal could send the wrong message to countries facing military aggression.
A Pattern of Unorthodox Diplomacy
Trump’s “Board of Peace” concept aligns with his broader foreign policy style, which favors personal diplomacy, bilateral deals, and headline-grabbing initiatives. During his presidency, Trump often emphasized his relationships with world leaders and repeatedly argued that he deserved recognition for avoiding new large-scale wars.
The announcement also comes amid Trump’s continued frustration over what he sees as a lack of international recognition for his foreign policy efforts—particularly his long-standing complaints about not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
What Comes Next?
At this stage, the “Board of Peace” remains a proposal rather than a formal institution. No clear structure, membership list, or legal authority has been outlined, leaving many questions unanswered about how such a body would operate—or whether it will materialize at all.
Still, the invitation to Putin has already succeeded in one respect: it has reignited global debate over how peace is defined, who gets a seat at the table, and whether unconventional diplomacy can deliver real results.
As geopolitical tensions remain high, Trump’s proposal underscores a growing divide in global politics—between those who prioritize engagement at all costs and those who argue that peace cannot exist without accountability.
Watch video below :
