The possibility of resolving Russia’s war against Ukraine gained new momentum following the change in the US presidential administration. With Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office in January 2025, the prospects for diplomatic solutions appeared possible, despite Trump’s unpredictability and the mixed signals. These developments led to further uncertainty surrounding future US policies toward Russia and Ukraine. While some viewed Trump’s administration as potentially offering a new approach to diplomacy, others raised concerns about Trump’s transactional, zero-sum, and almost business-style foreign policy outlook. Trump’s past engagements with authoritarian leaders, reinforced by repeated praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s "strong leadership," fueled new fears in Western capitals about America’s potential detente with Russia.
Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, political analysts and foreign policy experts speculated about the range of strategies his administration might adopt. Two principal approaches were generally discussed. The first, often framed as “peace through strength,” would entail leveraging US power to compel and incentivize both Russia and Ukraine to engage in negotiations through a mix of pressure and inducements. This scenario was based on the idea that the US maintained significant leverage over both countries. Toward Russia, this might include tightening sanctions on key sectors such as energy, banking, and the broader economy. Such measures could strain Russia’s already challenged war economy, which is forecasted to deteriorate further by 2026–2027 as the financial toll and social pressure of the war rise.
Simultaneously, the US could scale up its military and economic support to Ukraine to shift the battlefield dynamics and increase pressure on Russia to revise its strategic calculus. To incentivize Ukraine’s cooperation in talks, the US could make condition aid on Ukraine’s willingness to make concessions. This approach has been generally favored among members of the Republican Party and MAGA supporters, signaling to Ukraine that refusal to engage in negotiations could result in reduced assistance.
An alternative approach that many Western observers feared could involve the US distancing itself from the conflict and transferring “ownership” of deconfliction initiatives entirely to the European capitals. Such a shift would entail withdrawing from prior commitments to Ukraine, scaling back transatlantic security cooperation, and redirecting strategic focus toward the Indo-Pacific to address China's rise. This could include halting military and economic support to Ukraine completely and urging European allies to bear the burden of European security and Ukraine’s defense on their own. While this might indeed stimulate increased defense investment within Europe, especially under the framework of NATO, it would raise serious concerns about whether Europe could sustain Ukraine’s defense efforts in the absence of robust US involvement, particularly in the short term. Most concerning, however, would be a scenario in which the US would push for a peace settlement favoring Russia’s conditions and interests. Such an approach could severely undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and send troubling signals about the credibility of the US` commitments to defend international norms such as territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders.
A peace agreement that fails to address Ukraine’s and Europe’s core interests, particularly concerning not rewarding Russian aggression, would have far-reaching consequences. It would challenge the post–World War II international order and risk normalizing the use of force for territorial expansion. This could encourage similar actions by other states, further weakening the authority of international law and institutions, such as the UN. In such a scenario, smaller and medium-sized powers could find themselves increasingly vulnerable in a geopolitical environment shaped by great power rivalry and coercion.
Trump’s Distorted Vision for Peace
Despite Trump’s communicated intent of restoring ties with Russia during his presidential campaign, his approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine once he took office still caught many by surprise. Of particular concern was the initiation of direct engagement with Russia without adequate consultation with Ukraine or key European allies. Although this move was not wholly unexpected, given Trump’s unconventional foreign policy style, it nevertheless raised serious questions about the coherence and long-term objectives of Washington’s strategy and America’s reliability as a partner.
While it was widely assumed that Trump would move away from the Biden administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine "for as long as necessary," few predicted the extent to which Trump would assist Russia in achieving its geopolitical objectives. Indeed, from the start, the Trump administration halted the provision of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, tools that had been critical to Kyiv’s defense. This support was eventually restored, but on shaky grounds. Despite initial rhetoric warning Russia of potential consequences for failing to negotiate in good faith, Washington shifted its posture. It began pressing Ukraine on a range of issues, including repayment for past aid, the management of natural resources, and holding presidential elections amid the ongoing war. These demands were widely perceived as unreasonable and drew comparisons to historical precedents that reminded of harsh conditions imposed on defeated states after World War II. More importantly, they have contributed to blurring the line between the victim of aggression, Ukraine, and the aggressor, Russia.
Such developments have strained transatlantic trust. Another notable episode was Trump’s public criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom he described as a “dictator,” while questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine’s democratic institutions. This was followed by a public standoff scandal in the Oval Office during Zelenskyy’s visit to America. Some of these remarks closely mirrored narratives promoted by Russian state media, causing even more concerns among Europeans and Ukrainians. Simultaneously, the Trump administration asserted that Russia was signaling openness to negotiations, despite continued military escalations, including missile and drone attacks on cities like Kryvyi Rih, Dnipro, Kherson, and Kharkiv. These attacks targeted civilian infrastructure and contradicted claims of being open to diplomacy, especially the latest Russian war crime during the attack on Kryvyi Rih that took the lives of more than a dozen civilians, including 9 children. The dissonance between Washington’s rhetoric and the reality on the ground continues to exacerbate frustrations among European and Ukrainian leaders.
Russia’s Growing Demands
When assessing Russia’s long-term objectives, recent statements by President Putin make clear that Moscow remains committed to prosecuting the war while maintaining the façade of diplomatic engagement. In a notable remark, Putin stated, “Overall, we can clearly see what is happening right now. Our troops have the strategic initiative along the entire contact line. Only recently, I said that we would squeeze them into a corner, but now we have reason to believe that we are set to finish them off…”
Moreover, Russia’s public demands for ending the war suggest minimal interest in compromise. While tough opening positions are common in diplomatic negotiations, Russia’s conditions appear designed to complicate any meaningful dialogue. These include the formal recognition of occupied Ukrainian territories as part of Russia, including parts of the regions still under Ukrainian control, such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts. Additionally, Moscow has called for the limitations on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces and the adoption of neutral status – measures that would severely undermine Ukrainian sovereignty after years of devastating war, destruction, and systematic attacks on civilians. It is indeed challenging to envision the Ukrainian government and society agreeing to such demands; they have already been labeled a red line by the Ukrainian President.
In reality, these Russian demands appear to be aimed at leaving Ukraine strategically vulnerable and defenseless. Even if a limited ceasefire were achieved, it could simply serve as a tactical pause for Russia, allowing it to regroup and later resume hostilities. Given the absence of public or political support in Ukraine for concessions on Russia’s terms, it is not surprising that Moscow has also insisted on new presidential elections in Ukraine – a demand that directly contradicts Ukraine’s constitution. This tactic likely reflects the Kremlin’s broader attempt to influence Ukraine’s internal affairs and potentially support political figures who are more likely to sign an agreement that meets Russia’s expectations. With Russia showing little interest in genuine compromise, diplomacy is likely to remain stalled for the foreseeable future. Notably, a recent poll indicated that 74% of Ukrainians believe the country should continue resisting even without American support, which is an essential reminder that any settlement must align with Ukrainian public sentiment and national interests. Furthermore, having been exposed to years of living under Russian occupation, Ukrainians are well aware of what it looks like in reality – repressions, tortures, eradication of national consciousness, deportations, and other crimes. In this context, international justice for war crimes committed in Ukraine remains a key precondition for a durable and lasting peace – one that does not appear to be raised, at least publicly, by the American side during the ongoing negotiations.
In Ukraine, the prevailing perception appears to be rooted in the understanding that the cost of continuing the war is more favorable than accepting a flawed peace deal on Russia's terms, as such a plan would fail to provide stability, justice, or prospects for future recovery.
Moving Forward: The Need for European Leadership and a Long-Term Strategy
The ongoing divergence between Russia’s rhetoric and its actions highlights the limits of current diplomatic efforts. Despite ongoing talks involving US, Russian, and Ukrainian representatives, the situation bears troubling similarities to the failed Minsk agreements. Those efforts collapsed due to weak enforcement mechanisms and repeated Russian violations – issues that appear unresolved and unaddressed in the context of ongoing negotiations. The most recent 30-day ceasefire brokered by the US, intended to cover energy infrastructure and military operations in the Black Sea, has already been undermined by continued Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy grid. Cities such as Poltava, Kharkiv, and Kherson have experienced blackouts in violation of the ceasefire, reinforcing skepticism about Russia’s willingness to abide by negotiated commitments. The US seems to have already grasped that this diplomatic attempt has been failing.
A lasting peace will require credible deterrence mechanisms, something the Minsk agreements lacked. At present, neither the US nor its European allies have provided robust security guarantees that would deter renewed Russian aggression. One potential solution could be the deployment of a US and/or European military mission (with the US backing) to reinforce Ukraine’s air defense and ease the pressure on Ukrainian armed forces in multiple operational directions deep in the country. This would not necessarily mean engagement on the frontlines, but would serve as a visible signal of international resolve, as suggested previously and again emphasized by French President Emmanuel Macron. Without such a commitment, Russia may view any peace arrangement as a temporary solution, rather than a conclusion to the conflict.
Alternatively, efforts could focus on enhancing Ukraine’s domestic defense capabilities through expanded military aid, joint production ventures, and the removal of export restrictions on advanced systems such as air defense technologies and precision-guided munitions. These steps would not only improve Ukraine’s operational resilience but also convey to Russia that its aggression will meet firm resistance.
Conclusions
Given the trajectory of the war and current diplomatic initiatives, the likelihood of achieving a sustainable peace through a partial or rushed agreement appears slim. Existing efforts have thus far failed to resolve the conflict’s root causes. The Trump administration’s early moves, such as pushing for a quick deal without securing essential conditions, have drawn criticism as short-sighted. By framing Ukraine as the primary obstacle to peace and downplaying Russia’s responsibility for violating international law, Washington risks undermining both European and broader international security norms, which have promoted stability and regional security for decades.
The Trump administration’s approach has inadvertently illuminated Russia’s true aims: the dismantling of Ukrainian sovereignty and eventual subordination of the country to Moscow’s control. Putin’s broader strategy appears to involve the gradual reassertion of Russian dominance over parts of Europe, with Ukraine as the central target. A poorly designed peace deal could pave the way for future military escalations, jeopardize Ukraine’s independence, and destabilize the entire region of Eastern Europe and beyond.
These potentialities underscore the need for both the US and Europe to adopt a long-term approach to peace settlement, rather than a short-sighted one, currently pursued by the Trump administration. Europeans, in particular, should assume greater responsibility for regional security. This includes offering meaningful military contributions to Ukraine’s defense and investing in capabilities that reduce dependence on US assistance. While some efforts are already underway, more is needed beyond symbolic declarations. Strengthening Europe’s defense industrial base, fostering coordination, and securing sustainable financing will be key.
Ultimately, Europe cannot afford to remain passive. Relying on the hope that Washington’s position will change in future election cycles is not a viable strategy. The US strategic pivot to Asia initiated under the Obama administration took place a long time ago and is unlikely to reverse in the coming decades. The US strategic trajectory was set to focus less on Europe and Russia and concentrate on China as the most immediate threat to its global leadership. Amid growing uncertainty in the United States, Europe must adopt the mindset of Lord Palmerston, who asserted in 1848 that nations have neither eternal allies nor perpetual enemies - only eternal and perpetual interests that must be protected first and foremost. It is therefore imperative for Europe to lead in ensuring its own security.
Failure to do so risks allowing geopolitical rivalry and a lack of strategic foresight to turn the European continent into a grey zone of protracted instability and conflict.
Photo Credits: Shutterstock
