It took the Trump administration just four weeks to break Moscow’s international isolation and bring Russian officials to Riyadh for negotiations on Ukraine’s future—without the involvement of the Ukrainian government or European allies. Prior to that, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth dismissed the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO or receiving U.S. security guarantees—effectively shifting the responsibility for Ukraine’s defense onto Europe. By offering the most important concessions up front, Hegseth gave up valuable U.S. leverage before negotiations even started.
Following a pivotal speech by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference, Russian officials have grown emboldened. The Kremlin’s rhetoric today mirrors the demands Moscow made before launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Before his visit to Riyadh, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov flatly rejected the idea of territorial concessions to Ukraine.
Despite concerning signals from the Trump administration, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went to Washington with hopes of securing support from President Donald Trump and potentially finalizing a minerals deal. However, the meeting took an unexpected turn when Trump and Vance accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War III” and showing ingratitude for U.S. assistance. As a follow up step, Trump froze military aid as well as intelligence sharing to Ukraine. Such deterioration of relations delighted Kremlin officials, who now see the confrontation between the U.S. administration and Kyiv as a boost to Moscow’s negotiating position.
Unsurprisingly, since the Trump administration started to put pressure on Ukraine, the Kremlin’s stance has only hardened, with Moscow now calling for the cancellation of the 2008 Bucharest summit promise that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join NATO. In addition to these demands, Russia opposes the deployment of NATO peacekeeping forces to enforce any future cease-fire.
This reveals the Kremlin’s true intentions: After years of economic and political isolation, Moscow sees a rare opportunity to negotiate a favorable deal. This would allow Russia to restore its relations with Washington to a certain level, ease sanctions, and ensure Ukraine remains militarily vulnerable.
Furthermore, such a deal would enable Russian President Vladimir Putin to present the past three years as a victory to the Russian public, proving that all the sacrifice was worth it. More worryingly, Putin’s appetite will not shrink by signing a peace deal. A cease-fire would provide Russia with a much-needed pause and space to rebuild its military and resources, setting the stage for a renewed offensive when the conditions are right. This is why Russia adamantly rejects any Western presence on Ukrainian soil, fearing that such a presence could hinder its long-term objectives.
Trump’s zero-sum approach to peace—seeking a deal at any cost, even if it results in only temporary and fragile stability—could have irreversible consequences for Black Sea and European security. Russia will perceive such an approach as a green light to project its power in the region by directly interfering in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova and threatening European security through territorial expansionism and destabilizing actions along NATO’s eastern front.
Trump’s rush to sign a peace deal through placing Ukraine under pressure indicates that he is not interested in sustainable peace; rather, he is driven by a desire to be remembered as a peacemaker president who resolved some of the world’s most complex conflicts. Once the deal is in place, the Trump administration will place the responsibility of handling the long-term implications of imperfect peace on Europe.
In fact, while Trump criticizes his predecessors for mishandling Russia, he risks overlooking the lessons of previous U.S. administrations. Those who believed that normalizing relations and engaging constructively with Moscow would lead to peace were proven wrong. From George W. Bush to Barack Obama, each administration tried to reset relations with Russia, only to see the Kremlin escalate—first by invading Georgia in 2008 and then annexing Crimea in 2014. By repeating this mistake, the U.S. may inadvertently enable Russia to achieve its strategic goals, undermining the security of Europe and the broader international order.
Putin’s desire to speak directly to his U.S. counterparts reflects his desire to return to a model of great-power politics, where the United States and Russia can negotiate as equals and agree on spheres of influence. Putin sees Russia as a global power with a legitimate right to dominate the post-Soviet space, which he views as part of Russia’s rightful sphere of influence.
Similarly, Trump has shown signs of an expansionist mindset, aiming to assert U.S. dominance through both military and economic power. He has suggested using military force to secure control over the Panama Canal and Greenland, as well as using economic coercion to gain control of Canada. While the Trump administration risks putting the future of trans-Atlantic relations to the test, Russia sees an opportunity to exploit divisions within the West.
Even more concerning, Trump echoes key Russian propaganda narratives by accusing Zelensky of failing to prevent the war and labeling him a “dictator without elections.” Trump’s remarks play into Russian rhetoric, suggesting that the war could have been avoided if the Biden administration had not emboldened Zelensky.
Ending the war in Ukraine, without offering Kyiv solid security guarantees and establishing deterrence for imminent future Russian aggression, would eventually destabilize the Black Sea region. While the Russian military has been mobilized in Ukraine, recently, the Kremlin did not spare resources to destabilize Georgia and Moldova through investing in sophisticated anti-Western disinformation and cyber-operations against both countries.
Georgians are currently on the front line with their fight for saving the country’s democratic and European future at a time when the pro-Russian Georgian Dream government has taken a sharp U-turn, distancing Tbilisi from its long-standing European aspirations. In November 2024, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced the suspension of talks on Georgia’s bid to join the European Union until 2028, sparking mass protests that continue to this day. This decision marks a significant shift in Georgia’s foreign policy, signaling a departure from the country’s Western orientation and long-standing ambitions for EU membership.
Moldova’s pro-European government is constantly being targeted by pro-Russian disinformation, sabotage, and influence operations by its proxies. Simultaneously, Russia already has a military presence in Transnistria, which remains key leverage and a potential source of escalation. Currently, approximately 1,500 Russian troops are stationed in Moldova’s breakaway region that declared independence in 1990 but does not have international recognition.
Without a strong U.S. presence in the region and deterrence strategy, the Trump administration is counting on the wishful thinking that Putin would satisfy his appetite by annexing around 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory, when his initial intentions were much more ambitious and were only deterred by the will of the Ukrainian people to fight and the imperfect but still significant support provided by the West.
Currently, Russia is prepared for both scenarios. If proposed peace conditions prove unfavorable and the Trump administration will fully stop military aid for Ukraine despite issues with manpower and equipment, Russia can continue fighting with the backing of its allies, such as Iran and North Korea, until Ukraine runs out of resources.
Despite European leaders’ promises to stand with Ukraine, Moscow hopes that, in the long run, without U.S. support, European unity will fracture and leaders will struggle to maintain consensus among their respective populations. Russia anticipates that growing fatigue, especially in the face of rising economic instability, will erode the political will necessary for continued support of Ukraine.
However, given declining U.S. support—with no display of strength or conditionality to Russia and an overt demonstration of antagonism toward Zelensky—Putin now sees a window of opportunity to secure a more favorable deal. This would allow him to take a battlefield pause, stabilize the Russian economy, and prepare for future escalation.
Either scenario would have far-reaching consequences for European and Black Sea security. What the U.S. government should be focused on instead is forcing Russia into concessions and changing the calculus for Putin by making any future escalation too costly for Russia to pursue. First, Russia should not be allowed to dictate the red lines concerning Ukraine’s future capability to defend itself.
The Kremlin must not be given comfortable choices. Instead of preemptively conceding negotiation leverage, the Trump administration could have initiated the process by making it clear to Moscow that rejecting a deal would lead to increased U.S. military support for Ukraine. This would create an incentive for the Kremlin to carefully consider the costs of its decision.
Given that consensus over Ukraine’s NATO membership is unlikely to be achieved, in the short and medium term, Ukraine would need Western security guarantees to defend itself against any renewed escalation. In the longer term, Ukraine must be able to build a military force capable of deterring future Russian aggression. Achieving this would necessitate substantial and direct military support from the West, including enhanced intelligence assistance and heavy armament.
If he spearheads such an effort, Trump may indeed become a peacemaker.