Analysis of Trump-Putin Negotiations to End the Ukraine War

The Ukrainian issue has seen significant developments in recent days, returning it to the top of the international agenda. A phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin has shifted America’s approach to the war, an event the media deemed highly significant.

In a single call, Trump managed to alter Putin’s stance and the trajectory of the war in Ukraine. For three years, Putin had been treated as an adversary by the U.S., but this dynamic appears to have changed. Trump indicated he would welcome Putin back, even expressing hope for friendly relations. A source from the Russian Foreign Policy Foundation stated: “The direct call with Trump was precisely what Putin had been waiting for. This is just the beginning of negotiations, but Putin has won the first round.”

The U.S. Push for a War-Ending Solution

The Trump administration’s initiative to end the war in Ukraine hinges on Washington’s desire to demonstrate its ability to fulfill campaign promises that secured Trump’s re-election. Ukraine faces military and economic crises, while Russia is increasingly exhausted, weakening its external influence.

Though the primary goal may be initiating talks without certainty of a strong resolution, European affairs expert Tawfiq Aklimandos argues that ending the crisis requires robust security guarantees for Kyiv—something only the U.S. can provide (Al-Hurra – February 23, 2025).

However, while the U.S. can pressure Ukraine, it lacks equivalent leverage over Putin to force a full withdrawal without Russia achieving its objectives. Some Russian circles see improved conditions, as the new U.S. president refuses military support for Ukraine, granting Putin greater leeway. This shift could also weaken Europe’s pro-Ukraine stance.

Tatiana Stanovaya of R.Politik wrote: “Make no mistake, Putin is fully prepared for these talks to fail. He will continue flattering Trump, offering concessions Trump will tout as major victories—but these (like a ceasefire) won’t deter Russia from its ultimate goal: a disarmed Ukraine subservient to Moscow” (X Platform – February 14).

Challenges to Ending the War

Experts note Ukraine will likely reject recognizing occupied territories as Russian, reducing its military, legitimizing pro-Russian political projects, or abandoning NATO aspirations. More acceptable terms might include delaying NATO membership, freezing frontlines, holding elections, or exchanging Ukraine’s foothold in Russia’s Kursk region for occupied Ukrainian land.

Compromises could involve “pro-peace” parties (not openly pro-Russia), the status of the Russian language, or the Moscow-backed Orthodox Church if ties with Russia are cut. For Ukraine, the core issue is ensuring Russia doesn’t renew its invasion when the opportunity arises.

Stefan Wolff, a security professor at Birmingham University, said: “I expect a ceasefire along the current front, possibly with buffer zones—but no major territorial changes or recognition of the status quo.” Ukrainian analyst Volodymyr Fesenko suggested Ukraine might swap its Kursk foothold for Russia-held parts of Kharkiv (Kyiv Independent – February 12, 2025).

A key challenge is identifying an international body to oversee any agreement. The Telegraph reported in November that Trump might propose European peacekeepers enforcing a buffer zone in Ukraine—a plan Russia would likely reject, and Europe lacks enthusiasm for due to the high cost of deploying thousands of troops (CNN – February 10, 2024).

CNN’s Nick Paton Walsh highlighted another obstacle: whether the Kremlin even wants peace now. Russian forces are gaining ground (e.g., capturing Toretsk and advancing toward Pokrovsk in Donetsk), making it unclear why Russia would freeze its advances when Ukraine has little leverage (CNN – February 10, 2024).

Observers in and outside Moscow believe negotiations will be protracted and uncertain, with Russian success far from guaranteed. The Kremlin’s latest statement maintained a firm tone, with Putin stressing “the need to eliminate the root causes of the conflict” (The Guardian – February 13, 2025).

European and Ukrainian Concerns

As Washington pushes for immediate talks, Europe and Kyiv fear negotiations excluding Ukraine could undermine any deal’s legitimacy and sustainability. At a Paris meeting, foreign ministers of France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Britain, and Ukraine insisted Europe and Kyiv must be included, stating: “Our goal must be putting Ukraine in a strong position with robust security guarantees.”

The U.S. approach—aligning closely with Moscow’s vision—has sparked debate within NATO (32 members) and the EU (27). Some European governments, fearing Kremlin aggression, worry about Washington’s new direction and demand inclusion in talks.

Claire Sebastian, a Ukraine war analyst, noted: “For NATO members, the future is murkier. Europe has relied on America’s nuclear umbrella and troop presence. Trump’s call with Putin shocked European leaders, leaving them to fund and oversee any settlement. Washington may cut a deal (even extracting Ukrainian rare-earth minerals, as Trump hinted), while Europe bears the cost” (CNN – February 13, 2025).

Despite Europe’s perceived weakness, continued EU support for Ukraine could prolong the war and help Kyiv resist U.S.-Russian pressure—though most analysts believe Europe’s goal is securing guarantees for Ukraine.

International analyst Jeremy Bowen noted: “Zelensky painfully realizes that while European allies seem steadier than the U.S., America remains the world’s top military power. ‘Security guarantees without the U.S. aren’t real,’ he told The Guardian last week. Europe has given Ukraine more money, but only the U.S. provides critical weapons like Patriot missiles defending Kyiv” (BBC – February 13, 2025).

Conclusions

Negotiations matter because Ukrainians now recognize that NATO membership and full territorial reconquest by force are unlikely. Ukrainian officials stress the need for security guarantees preventing future Russian attacks. Yet Trump faces a dilemma: boasting he holds the key to peace is one thing, but bridging the gap between Putin and Zelensky’s opposing demands—amid criticism from allies and Americans for his concessions to Russia—is another.

CNN reports that the potential settlement framework has been privately discussed in Washington and European capitals for months, even under Biden. Ukraine’s hopes of reclaiming all lost territory are unrealistic, possibly leading to a Germany-like postwar division: Russian-held territories frozen under its control, with the rest of Ukraine (perhaps its western edge) joining the EU (CNN – February 13, 2024).