Mediating in Public and Private: Can Donald Trump Achieve Peace in the Ukraine War?: The prospects for brokering a just peace in Ukraine will depend on the Trump Administration’s willingness and ability to undertake a sustained, focused effort in the coming months.
Success will require strategically backing personal diplomacy through incentives and threats, effectively using Washington’s leverage through sanctions, coordinating with allies, and maneuvering with other stakeholders such as China, India, and key Middle Eastern countries.
Brokering a Ceasefire in the Ukraine War
Attempts to reach a ceasefire have likely already happened numerous times. President-elect Donald Trump’s position has been marked by his stated understanding of Russia’s grievances and his readiness to meet with Vladimir Putin, balanced against his top Ukraine advisor’s promise to find an “equitable” and “fair” solution for Kyiv. According to reliable sources, soon after the November election, Trump asked Putin by phone to refrain from escalating the war. Members of Trump’s team also reached out to Ukraine, and the president-elect himself hinted that he prefers to keep any negotiation details private for now.
Ukraine has shown flexibility regarding territorial issues and has dropped any insistence on an immediate return to its December 1991 borders. At the same time, Kyiv expects justice and reliable post-war security guarantees. Both positions align broadly with the broad approach to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict that any U.S. administration is likely to follow.
By contrast, Moscow—which one might expect to welcome the prospect of a Trump-Putin meeting—has so far reacted in baffling ways. When Donald Trump was elected in 2016, the Kremlin openly expressed enthusiasm and agreed to “play ball” (Putin notably did not retaliate after the expulsion of Russian diplomats that December). This time, however, Russia’s response has not indicated a willingness to explore a ceasefire or peace deal, nor has it seized the favorable opportunity presented by Trump’s interest in a quick resolution.
Trump’s request that Moscow avoid escalating the war was met with a test of a new intermediate-range ballistic missile and renewed threats. Since the November 2024 election, Moscow has continued to insist on maximalist demands that would likely be unacceptable to Trump. On nearly every key issue—territorial changes, their legal recognition, and the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine—there remains a substantial gulf between Ukraine’s and Russia’s positions. It is questionable whether a comprehensive deal can be reached if neither side is willing to compromise on any individual point.
Moscow Holding Out
Moscow has only expressed lukewarm interest in a Trump-Putin meeting after the January 20 inauguration. Even in that case, it would be for Washington to “make the first move,” according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who recently exposed France for supposedly inviting Russia to negotiate an end to the war behind Ukraine’s back. Such an approach is seemingly at odds with a coordinated message of goodwill toward a discreetly brokered settlement. Surprisingly, Russia’s stance risks squandering the opening Trump created with his November phone call.
Historically, when faced with mounting difficulties and sanctions, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has eventually sought off-ramps. In August 2008, Russian forces halted their advance on Tbilisi within days. In 2014–15, the annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine led to the Minsk agreements. When President Biden proposed an in-person meeting in April 2021, preparations began promptly, and Russia temporarily pulled back troops from Ukraine’s border.
Now, the war has dragged on for almost three years. While the initial blitzkrieg approach resembled Russia’s past tactics in the post-Soviet space, the current, open-ended continuation does not. If the Kremlin were genuinely ready to negotiate, we would see signs of domestic preparations for compromise. So far, there are none. Instead, the conflict seems to be unfolding in a more unpredictable, freewheeling way. Declaring a goal of unconditional victory seems imprudent for Russia, especially given U.S. assurances—such as those from General Keith Kellogg—and a conservative think tank report claiming that Ukraine’s defeat would be more costly for Washington than a negotiated fair solution.
Indeed, the United States appears unimpressed by Russia’s missile test—unlike the fall of 2022, when officials seriously considered the threat of a nuclear strike on Ukraine. The Biden Administration has now introduced new and potentially devastating sanctions, seemingly coordinated with the incoming team. In a similar way, the first Trump Administration imposed significant tariffs on imports from China, which the Biden Administration chose to keep. Meanwhile, Russia’s economy faces a more complex situation now than in December 2021—grappling with inflation, currency fluctuations, and the cost of funding a large mercenary army. Despite these challenges, Moscow seems determined to raise the stakes even more.
Whether Trump can succeed in mediating a settlement depends mainly on Washington’s ability to understand the sources and dynamics of Moscow’s behavior. Russia’s recent shifts—briefly exploring negotiations, denying contact with the president-elect, then issuing unrealistic settlement terms—suggest factions in Moscow are divided, with some open to talks and others preferring to wait, even at the risk of alienating Donald Trump.
Russian Tanks in Ukraine. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Without a concerted effort to reshape the warring sides’ calculations, a solution remains elusive in the near term. It might also be that strictly behind-the-scenes diplomacy will not bring the desired results. Washington may need to secure a public commitment from both sides to a formula that appears fair to Ukraine and acceptable to Russia. Achieving this would demand consistent, high-level attention from Washington—and a willingness to risk public refusals by any party unwilling to accept the proposed terms.
Ultimately, the success or failure of Trump’s mediation efforts will hinge on whether all parties can be guided toward a realistic compromise—one that acknowledges the core interests of Ukraine, pays tribute to Russian security concerns where legitimate, and solidifies U.S. credibility in guiding the process.
The stakes are high, and so is the potential payoff if a just and lasting peace can be found.
About the Author:
Mikhail Troitskiy is a visiting scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University, and a visiting professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
This post was originally published on here
