TALLINN, Estonia – High-level discussions about ending the war in Ukraine have transpired in esteemed locations such as an ornate Kremlin room, the polished marble halls of St. Peter’s Basilica, and during particularly tense discussions within the Oval Office of the White House.
The ongoing endeavor spearheaded by Washington to conclude the conflict in Ukraine reveals a potentially advantageous deal for Russia. President Donald Trump has openly criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, mirrored sentiments often expressed by the Kremlin, and implied that Kyiv must relinquish territory and abandon ambitions for NATO membership. Furthermore, Trump has pursued a relationship with Moscow that seemed improbable just months ago.
Trump’s recent actions have sent mixed signals, with social media hints suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin might be manipulating him, although no concrete deal has yet been established.
Despite the appearances favoring the Kremlin, no agreements proposed have been finalized.
In a recent development on Wednesday, the U.S. and Ukraine inked a significant agreement granting the United States access to Ukraine’s extensive mineral resources, potentially facilitating ongoing military support for Ukraine amidst incessant Russian attacks.
Zelenskyy remarked on Thursday that this deal was the first outcome of his “truly historic” meeting with Trump at the Vatican prior to Pope Francis’ funeral.
Nikolay Petrov, a senior researcher at the New Eurasian Strategies Centre think tank, mentioned that a positive aspect for the Kremlin is the resurgence of U.S.-Russia dialogue on a broader spectrum beyond the war, after years of tense relations post-Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Russian officials and media have underscored that Ukraine represents just one element on a more expansive agenda between the “two superpowers.”
In March, conversations between Trump and Putin encompassed Ukraine, the Middle East, the prevention of strategic weapons proliferation, and even potential international hockey matches.
Russian state media highlighted a meeting between Putin and Trump’s envoy Steve-Witkoff as evidence of the two nations constructing “a new structure of the world” together.
“Putin has already achieved part of his objective,” Petrov noted, as Russia positions itself as an equal to the U.S. in international standing.
Trump publicly stated that Crimea, unlawfully annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014, “belongs with Russia,” and proposals reportedly presented by his team to Kyiv last month seemingly allowed Russia to retain control over occupied territories. Following a contentious meeting with Zelenskyy at the White House on February 28, Trump criticized Zelenskyy for rejecting territorial concessions and claimed Kyiv has slim prospects of joining NATO.
These align with Russia’s established stances, signaling Trump’s administration’s apparent alignment with the Kremlin’s vision.
As things stand, the situation remains predominantly theoretical, with concrete terms for a peace deal still uncertain, noted Sergey Radchenko, a historian at Johns Hopkins University.
There are substantial demands from both Russia and Ukraine that pose challenges for any peace agreement. Ukraine demands territorial integrity and robust security guarantees, potentially involving peacekeeping forces—an idea some European countries are considering but Russia categorically opposes.
Conversely, Russia seeks to retain control over seized territories, prevent Ukraine’s NATO membership, and insists Kyiv “demilitarizes,” significantly reducing its military capabilities.
Radchenko perceives the latter demand as a significant barrier, as Ukraine’s defensive strength relies on maintaining a viable army.
“If limitations are set on the types of arms Ukraine can obtain or the size of its army, reaching an agreement would be extremely challenging,” he said.
Further complexity was added by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who emphasized that internationally acknowledging Russian-annexed territories in Ukraine is vital for a peace agreement.
Given the widespread international condemnation of these annexations as violations of international law, achieving such recognition poses substantial challenges.
Some analysts suggest that prolonging the war might serve Putin’s interests by securing further territorial gains.
Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have all suggested withdrawing from the peace initiative if noticeable progress stalls.
To show a willingness to engage in dialogue, Putin declared a 72-hour ceasefire starting May 8, coinciding with Russia’s Victory Day to mark the end of World War II.
Zelenskyy dismissed this ceasefire as another manipulative tactic by Putin to stall the U.S., arguing for an immediate and extended ceasefire instead.
Improved Russian market performance has been attributed to anticipated peace agreements and the potential return of U.S. investments, with implications for economic stability if negotiations falter.
Understanding the ramifications on the battlefield if the U.S. ceases its peace efforts is crucial.
“What precisely the Trump administration means by walking away remains uncertain. Does it signify withdrawal from talks while continuing support for Ukraine?” Greene questioned.
Greene expressed uncertainty about whether the U.S. stepping back from negotiations would mean sustained support for Kyiv, and Russia might be equally unsure about the continuation or cessation of U.S. aid.
“I believe calculating the risks of dragging this out is complex for the Kremlin,” added Greene.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized that the mineral agreement demonstrates the Trump administration’s commitment to a peace process centering on a free, autonomous, and prosperous Ukraine long-term.
The role of Europe in compensating for potential gaps in U.S. aid will be pivotal.
If Trump abandons the peace initiative but continues normalizing relations with Russia and lifting sanctions, it would represent a significant victory for Putin, though it is far from certain, Radchenko stated.
Greene noted that it would be a political hurdle for Trump due to numerous congressional sanctions based on the Ukraine conflict.