Can Trump End the Ukraine War?
By Nikola Mikovic
Editor’s note: The opinions expressed here are those of the authors. View more opinion on ScoonTV.
Moscow and Washington Discuss Ukraine without Ukraine’s Participation
US President Donald Trump seems determined to end the Russian-Ukrainian war “immediately.” Although both countries are weary of the full-scale conflict that erupted three years ago, reaching a sustainable peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv will be easier said than done.
For Russia, an ideal solution involves a Ukraine that is “friendly” to the Kremlin, lacking military capabilities, with a revised constitution that includes a legal status for the Russian language, a formal recognition of Moscow’s annexation of five Ukrainian regions—Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—and guarantees of Kyiv’s non-membership in NATO.
For Ukraine, the full restoration of its sovereignty has long been its top war goal. However, some voices have suggested that Kyiv might be satisfied with regaining its pre-2022 territory, meaning Russia would effectively control only Crimea and small parts of the Donbass. At this point, however, such ambitions seem far out of reach.
According to Pete Hegseth, United States Secretary of Defense, returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an “unrealistic objective.” He refers to the year when the war in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbass broke out, following the Euromaidan protests in Kyiv that led to the overthrow of the allegedly pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is, therefore, a continuation of the Donbass war that was effectively “put on hold” in 2015 when Russian and Ukrainian representatives signed the Minsk Agreement.
As the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel openly admitted in December 2022, the ceasefire deal signed in the Belarusian capital was an “attempt to give Ukraine time”, and that Kyiv used it “to become stronger.” Russian President Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, repeatedly stated that his Western partners have “deceived him”. Despite this, he seems ready to sign another agreement with them.
Coincidently or not, on February 12, 2025 – the 10th anniversary of the Minsk Agreement – Trump spoke by phone with Putin in their first publicized call since the US leader returned to the White House. Interestingly enough, their conversation came a day after Moscow released American schoolteacher Marc Fogel from prison in Russia. According to the US President, both leaders want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the Russian-Ukrainian war.
“We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately,” Trump said, calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shortly afterward.
As he stated, he agreed to work “very closely” with Putin, including visiting each other’s nations. Trump emphasized,
We both reflected on the Great History of our Nations, and the fact that we fought so successfully together in World War II.
Does that mean that the US President will accept Putin’s invitation and visit Moscow in the future? Rumors are flying that the two leaders can meet in the Russian capital on May 9, when Russia celebrates Victory Day, which is the annual commemoration of Nazi Germany’s defeat during World War II. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Victory Day celebrations.
There is also a possibility that Putin and Trump will meet in Saudi Arabia. At the same time, it remains highly uncertain when, and if at all, the Russian leader will meet with the Ukrainian President. Currently, the United States and Russia are discussing Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation – something that was hardly imaginable during the Biden presidency.
Western Troops in Ukraine
Indeed, many things have changed since Donald Trump returned to the White House. Very few policymakers in Kyiv still talk about Ukraine’s 1991 borders including all territories that are now, from the Kremlin’s perspective, part of the Russian Federation. Also, in the past, Ukrainian leaders were firmly insisting on their country’s victory over Russia, ruling out any territorial concessions to Moscow. Now Zelensky reportedly wants to make peace with the Kremlin. But how realistic is that?
As Pete Hegseth stated, the United States “does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.” Such a position might appease the Kremlin, although it remains unclear whether NATO ever seriously considered Kyiv’s membership in the US-led bloc. Fully aware that it is unlikely to join NATO anytime soon, if at all, Ukraine hopes to get security guarantees from Western countries. According to Hegseth, any security guarantee must be “backed by capable European and non-European troops.”
“If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine, at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission, and they should not be covered under Article Five,” the US Secretary of Defense stressed.
In other words, individual NATO members might deploy their troops to Ukraine, but if they engage in hostilities with the Russian military, NATO will not intervene. Such an outcome would represent a huge humiliation for Moscow, given that it would have to accept that foreign troops, from NATO countries, will be in Ukraine, and that they will almost certainly train and arm the Ukrainian military, preparing it for another war in the future.
On the other hand, if Trump’s peace plan implies that Ukraine must recognize Russia’s annexation of significant parts of its territory, it will be very difficult to find a politician in Kyiv willing to sign such an agreement. Fully aware of that, Trump likely seeks a ceasefire and a solution that would temporarily (even though it may last for many years) set aside the Ukraine war, and allow the United States to focus on other issues. The problem is that such a strategy will only freeze the conflict, paving the way for a new war in the future.
In the meantime, Europe, rather than the US, will bear the full responsibility for the implementation of a potential ceasefire or a peace deal, with security guarantees falling entirely on European nations. Ukraine, for its part, may have to wait for decades to get the opportunity to recapture territories that are currently under Russian control.
Who Wins, Who Loses?
Given Kyiv’s heavy dependence on the United States, Zelensky does not seem to be in a position to say no to Donald Trump. He seems to have already started preparing the ground for a post-war Ukraine, imposing sanctions on his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, accusing him of treason. But if he signs a deal with Moscow that includes territorial concessions, Zelensky, rather than Poroshenko, will be seen as a traitor by many Ukrainians.
Regardless of that, Zelensky, or whoever replaces him, will likely have to make significant compromises with Russia, although that does not mean that Moscow will achieve all the goals of its so-called special military operation in Ukraine. For Russia, unable to defeat the Ukrainian military, it is rather humiliating that the United States – a country Russian officials and pro-Kremlin propagandists often label as an “enemy” – acts as a de facto mediator in the Ukraine war.
More importantly, without direct control over the entire country, Russia will not be able to “denazify” Ukraine. Also, with European troops on the ground, any form of demilitarization of the Eastern European country does not sound realistic. Finally, without a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, the Kremlin cannot count on friendly relations between Russia and Ukraine. Thus, regardless of their rhetoric, neither Putin nor Zelensky can be satisfied with what is believed to be Trump’s peace plan.
The only party that can fully benefit from such an arrangement, at least in the short to mid-term, is the United States – especially if it manages to secure Ukraine’s critical minerals, and shift the burden of further weapons supply and Ukraine’s reconstruction onto Europe. That would be a large win for Trump, who wants to bask in his appointed role as peacekeeper and would pave the way to a Nobel Peace Prize for the man ostracised by the global community during his first term.
