When Russian forces invaded Ukraine three years ago, they were confident of a swift victory, believing that their well-prepared parade uniforms would soon see a triumphant display in Kyiv. However, what President Vladimir Putin labeled as a “special military operation” has spiraled into one of the most significant conflicts in Europe since World War II, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties and extensive destruction across Ukrainian cities. The war also led to millions of people fleeing their homes while Russia found itself increasingly isolated from Western nations.
As discussions resume between senior Russian and U.S. officials, prospects for a summit seem to indicate that Putin is poised to solidify Moscow’s control over approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory, while simultaneously keeping Ukraine out of NATO. Following a sharp shift in U.S. policy under President Donald Trump, who reversed the previous three years of isolating Russia, both leaders have agreed to work collaboratively toward ending the conflict. Trump revealed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would also be included in negotiation discussions, although specifics were limited.
Trump acknowledged Russia’s demand regarding Ukraine’s bid to join NATO, which has been previously characterized by Western leaders as a non-negotiable fact. He pointed out that Russia has consistently maintained that NATO membership for Ukraine was off the table, indicating his acceptance of that stance.
Putin initiated the invasion on February 24, 2022, in response to NATO’s eastward expansion and a demand for the alliance to withdraw troops from its borders, a request that was firmly rejected by Western allies. The Kremlin claimed the action was a defensive measure to secure Russian interests and protect Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine. Conversely, Kyiv and its allies condemned this act as unwarranted aggression, perceiving it as an effort by Moscow to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty and identity.
In the early stages of the invasion, Russian forces advanced towards Kyiv but were eventually forced to retreat a month later due to significant losses and effective Ukrainian counterattacks. Additional setbacks ensued in September and October 2022, leading to a Ukrainian counteroffensive that reclaimed large areas in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions.
However, in 2023, the tables began to turn again after a Ukrainian attempt to cut off Russia’s supply routes to Crimea failed. Subsequently, Russian forces regained the initiative, launching larger offensives along the extensive front line and gradually making gains throughout the fall, capturing the most territory since the war’s commencement. Moscow also targeted Ukrainian infrastructure with relentless missile and drone strikes, severely crippling its energy capabilities.
In August 2023, Ukraine launched a strike into Russia’s Kursk region, hoping to divert Russian military attention and strengthen its position in future negotiations. Nevertheless, despite some territorial gains, Ukraine struggled with limited resources, which complicated their ability to maintain strongholds in the conflict’s eastern regions.
While initially, Zelenskyy demanded a complete Russian withdrawal as a prerequisite for negotiations, he later recognized that reclaiming all lost territories was not an immediate possibility. He reiterated Ukraine’s steadfast ambition to join NATO, despite Trump’s skepticism regarding the feasibility of such a goal. Zelenskyy underscored the necessity for reliable security assurances from Western nations and a strong peacekeeping presence to deter future Russian actions.
Trump’s discussions with Putin and ongoing U.S.-Russia dialogues in Saudi Arabia disrupted the Biden administration’s principle of involving Ukraine in any negotiations concerning its resolution. In remarks shifting blame, Trump asserted that Kyiv had missed opportunities to negotiate with Moscow, praising Russian military strength and even hinting at a future where Ukraine could become part of Russia.
Zelenskyy firmly stated that Ukraine would reject any agreements made without its involvement and insisted that European partners be integral in peace talks. He criticized a U.S.-proposed draft agreement that favored American interests regarding Ukraine’s mineral resources, noting the absence of security guarantees for his country.
The approach taken by Trump has bewildered European allies, who grew increasingly concerned after Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the Munich security conference regarding free speech and migration, which many found dismissive.
While the Trump administration suggested that European nations were not welcome in the peace negotiations, it encouraged them to offer security guarantees for Ukraine. This contradictory stance was highlighted by former British ambassador Nigel Gould-Davies, who remarked that Washington’s position indicated it alone would dictate the terms of peace while simultaneously implying Europe would bear the costs of such decisions.
Putin’s overarching objectives have largely remained the same: requiring Ukraine to renounce NATO aspirations and to support the use of the Russian language, in a bid to keep Ukraine within Moscow’s sphere of influence. He now seeks a withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from four regions under Russian control but lacking full oversight.
He has indicated that a potential peace agreement could be derived from an earlier draft that mandated Ukraine’s neutrality, military scaling, and the protection of Russian culture and language, though these discussions collapsed by April 2022 without resolution.
Despite ruling out a ceasefire to prevent advantages for Kyiv, some analysts suggest Putin might consider it if Ukraine promotes elections following a truce. Trump reiterated this perspective, claiming Zelenskyy ought to face voters despite Kyiv stating that conducting elections during wartime is untenable. This assertion was escalated by a recent social media statement from Trump labeling Zelenskyy as a “Dictator without Elections.”
Experts believe that a political election would potentially destabilize Zelenskyy’s position, giving rise to political turmoil advantageous to Moscow. As noted by Tatiana Stanovaya from the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, the situation could result in conditions favorable to Kremlin interests, irrespective of external mediation or agreements.
The outlook for who would oversee any potential ceasefire remains uncertain. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed that NATO should play no part in any peacekeeping efforts. Any overseas troops involved must not be protected by NATO’s defense treaties, potentially dampening European interest in participating in such missions.
While some nations, including the U.K., have signaled readiness to contribute troops for peacekeeping, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has firmly stated that Moscow would reject any peacekeeping forces made up of NATO personnel. Suggestions have been made regarding the inclusion of Chinese or Brazilian troops for monitoring, yet neither country has shown intent to get involved.
It appears that Putin is not in a hurry to negotiate a peace deal, with Stanovaya observing that talks are desirable but not essential for Russia to accomplish its objectives in Ukraine. She notes that practically any outcome could yield advantages for Moscow, as the ongoing disunity in the West diminishes cohesion and support for Ukraine amidst Russia’s territorial advancements.
Putin has made it clear that he believes Russia can attain its goals in Ukraine without necessitating a U.S.-mediated agreement, suggesting that patience will eventually enable Moscow to exploit Ukraine’s internal divisions and suppress any remaining Ukrainian resistance.
