Ukraine war: How Trump’s peace initiatives are challenging both West and Russia

As the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fourth year, a major shift has emerged: President Donald Trump’s push for direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s diplomatic efforts focus on pressuring Ukraine into a potential mineral deal and encouraging a peace agreement while also applying economic pressure on Russia—a strategy that has previously faltered.

Confident in his position, Russian President Vladimir Putin has intensified attacks to maximise gains before any potential peace talks. The recapture of 90 per cent of the Kursk region, with thousands of Ukrainian soldiers encircled, has left Ukraine scrambling to minimise losses. This escalation came after a tense exchange between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and President Trump in the White House, leading to a U-turn by Zelenskyy in order to secure Trump’s support. This resulted in the resumption of military hardware and intelligence sharing with Ukraine after a brief pause.

European leaders in a huddle, with repeated summits and meetings, continue to make morale-boosting gestures to Ukraine, urging it to hold out as long as possible. However, their nervousness is palpable, as they lack the capability to shoulder Ukraine’s burden without the US. They are focused on building their own capacity while increasing aid to Ukraine but remain divided internally on their role and level of commitment.

The 30-day ceasefire proposal, along with the restoration of military aid and intelligence sharing, did not sit well with Russia, which sees it as a one-sided breather that allows Ukraine to rearm. Meanwhile, the battlefield realities are quickly shifting in Russia’s favour, with advances not only in the Kursk region but across multiple fronts.

Key Elements of Trump’s Strategy: A Calculated Approach

While many view President Trump’s actions as unpredictable, a closer analysis reveals a well-defined strategic pattern based on existing realities. His team has signalled his intentions through various forums, such as the Secretary of Defence address in Brussels, statements at the Munich Conference, and the draft mineral deal with Ukraine.

Zelenskyy’s inconclusive visit to the White House, a series of summits in Europe, the UK in support of Zelenskyy (Advocating Coalition of Willing), the brief pause in US military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine and subsequent restoration of it, once Ukraine agreed to ceasefire and mineral deal, reflect a cohesive strategy.

Trump’s actions indicate a desire to end the Cold War 1.0 with Russia and shift focus to Cold War 2.0, primarily targeting China through non-kinetic means, such as economic warfare. He does not want to get dragged into unwanted escalation with Russia into nuclear war or potential World War III—risks posed by ongoing actions in Ukraine or Europe, if not checked. His overall strategy suggests reducing non-profitable global commitments, concentrating efforts in the Indo-Pacific where the global economic fulcrum is shifting, and allowing Europe to manage its own security while supporting Israel in the Middle East to look after US interests.

Trump’s Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, has advocated for diplomatic negotiations and stated that NATO membership for Ukraine is not a feasible outcome of any negotiated settlement. He called the objective of restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders as “unrealistic”, emphasised that European nations should shoulder a greater share of military and non-military aid to Ukraine. He also ruled out any US troop deployment in Ukraine and any cover under Article 5 for any future peacekeeper deployment in Ukraine. With the hopeless situation on the frontlines in Ukraine, the US is not interested in sharing the embarrassment of a possible lost war if Ukraine or Europe choose to continue it.

Trump’s strategy also includes extracting economic benefits from Ukraine, restarting diplomatic engagement with Russia and leveraging resources. His approach may involve lifting certain sanctions in exchange for Russian concessions or imposing more if Russia does not adhere to peace initiatives—an approach that may or may not succeed.

Why is NATO struggling?

After three years, NATO is divided, with no clear war aims or strategy for conflict termination or to counter a determined Russia making significant strides towards its war objectives, having endured the sanctions by the collective West. NATO countries since post-World War II have depended on collective security, with the United States doing the heavy lifting.

Most NATO countries ignored building their combat capabilities and reduced their army to approximately five to 20 per cent of its original size of post-World War II. NATO kept expanding eastwards into countries of erstwhile USSR, despite James Baker’s promise of ‘not an inch eastwards’. Without creating capabilities to face a pushback from Russia, they added security liabilities. Today these countries find themselves unable to defend themselves without a US security umbrella.

At the war’s outset, NATO’s goal was to weaken Russia, reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian energy, and create a captive market for US defence and energy companies. However, as the war dragged on, NATO’s stance shifted from “Putin must lose” to “Putin must not win”, and now to “Ukraine should get just peace”.

This reality was well understood by President Trump, and he has been insisting on NATO increasing their defence spending. The optics of NATO supporting Ukraine and the gesture of France to open debate to extend its nuclear umbrella to Europe (with 290 nukes) do not change the ground situation in war without US leadership.

Russia has a much bigger nuclear arsenal, and without the nod of the US, Europe is unlikely to go for direct war with Russia. Poland’s request for deployment of nuclear weapons on its soil, for instance, is a non-starter due to the risks it poses (like inviting Cuban Crisis Part 2!).

Even if Europe starts its military capacity building for a combat role now (like the EU has proposed mobilising $841 billion for its security), it will take a long time before they are confident of taking on Russia without the security umbrella of the US. It, therefore, leaves NATO with limited options but to support Ukraine in a proxy war, gravely depleting its own reserves. Hence, there is wide variation in their opinions, orientations and actions, and internal divisions are increasingly visible. EU chief proposes plan to ‘urgently’ increase defence spending by mobilising around $840 billion

In some NATO countries, public support for long-term aid to Ukraine is dwindling, with economic challenges like inflation and energy costs making defence spending more difficult. NATO may not be collapsing, but it is undoubtedly struggling with internal disagreements, military readiness, and long-term strategic goals.

Russian Aims and Strategy

Russia’s strategic goals in Ukraine remain clear: prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, carry out “denazification and disarming,” secure control of the Donbass region, and establish a linguistic and territorial boundary. The military aim behind the Special Military Operation was to capture Donbass and create a land corridor linking it to Crimea, with the ultimate goal of capturing Odessa and linking up with Transnistria to secure Russia’s maritime space in the Black Sea.

Its offensive in the Kyiv region in the beginning of 2022 failed to produce the desired shock & awe effect for the Ukrainian regime to collapse, as Ukraine was also preparing for war from 2014 onwards and resulted in heavy casualties of men and material, but it worked as a ‘turning movement’ to turn the defences of the Donbass region and gave them quick gains there. It quickly learnt from its mistakes, established a viable defence line along eastern borders and adapted its strategy based on battlefield realities. Having absorbed the Ukrainian counteroffensive, it continues to gain ground to date.

Russia’s reorientation of its defence production based on needs on the battlefield has outpaced NATO. Putin’s nuclear threats and offensive gestures kept NATO out of direct war, although it continues its non-kinetic, proxy war against Russia. Despite NATO’s rhetoric of strength, Russia’s patience and resilience have paid off, and it is steadily advancing towards its strategic objectives.

Future of the 30-Day Ceasefire Proposal

The latest peace initiative from the Trump administration emerged after a meeting in Saudi Arabia between US and Ukrainian diplomats, proposing a 30-day ceasefire to Russia. However, the US seemed too eager to restore military aid and intelligence sharing to prevent a collapse in Kursk and to boost Ukraine’s sagging morale.

The ceasefire proposal, hailed by the Western media as a breakthrough, was in fact a tactical necessity for Zelenskyy, who had little choice but to accept it. The proposal was not fully thought through and gave Russia reason to believe that it would allow Ukraine to rearm and reorganise.

Putin demonstrated diplomatic maturity by publicly supporting the ceasefire idea and Trump’s initiative but insisted that any ceasefire must “remove underlying causes of this crisis”. He called for guarantees that Ukraine would not mobilise troops, would not receive additional weapons, and that monitoring and verification mechanisms would be in place to ensure compliance.

The proposal remains under discussion, but until then, Russia will continue its military push to achieve most of its goals on the battlefield, while Ukraine will likely keep fighting—at least until Zelenskyy’s leadership changes or frontlines collapse.

Navigating the Path Forward

With Russian forces advancing along a 2,000-kilometre front and thousands of Ukrainian troops encircled, Russia is in a strong military position. In any future negotiations, Russia is likely to demand Ukraine’s permanent non-membership in NATO, renounce claims to the four provinces it has declared part of Russia, halt weapons supplies to Ukraine, and prohibit NATO troops in the country in Ukraine in any form.

For Ukraine and NATO, these demands may appear as capitulation, making acceptance unlikely. Yet these conditions are not far from what Putin sought before the war. The ball is back in NATO’s court. Trump’s economic pressure may not be enough to force Putin to compromise, but Russia, too, faces pressure to limit the scope of war beyond a point.

President Trump has an option not to get entangled in the war provoked by the last administration and blame it for ruining it, but with sanctions and arms supply, he too may get entrapped in war, which NATO can’t win, unless he sacrifices Make America Great Again (MAGA) and puts all American dreams at risk.

The war’s fourth year has revealed its harsh realities—it is time to move beyond rhetoric and negotiate a lasting peace. Both sides will have to make significant compromises to avoid catastrophe. The world will have to wait and see who will yield what to prevent further escalation. It remains to be seen whether President Trump’s initiatives for resolution of this war succeed or bring fresh challenges to the affected parties.

The author is a strategic and security analyst. He can be reached at Facebook and LinkedIn as Shashi Asthana, @asthana_shashi on Twitter, and personnel site asthanawrites.org/. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.