Will Washington’s Pressure on Russia Succeed in Ending the War in Ukraine?
Throughout his presidential campaign and after his return to the White House for a second term, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly boasted about his ability to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to reach an agreement to end the ongoing war. On several occasions, he even set a 24-hour timeline to accomplish the mission and stop the conflict, insisting that the war would never have broken out had he been president at the time.
However, after Washington canceled the Budapest Summit — which had been scheduled between Presidents Trump and Putin in late October 2025 — due to Moscow’s insistence on specific demands regarding Ukraine (according to the U.S. narrative), questions have resurfaced about Trump’s actual ability to end the war, the leverage he might use to achieve this goal, and the obstacles standing in his way.
The Challenge of Ending the War
President Trump holds certain leverage that he believes could bring both sides of the Ukrainian war to the negotiating table and pave the way for a settlement. On the Russian side, Trump enjoys a strong and personal relationship with Putin, evidenced by numerous phone calls between the two leaders both before and after Trump took office. Trump has long banked on this personal rapport to persuade Putin to halt the war after securing some symbolic victories that could be publicly presented as a justified success.
Another major card Trump holds is U.S. military aid to Ukraine — which has significantly declined since he assumed office. Trump believes Putin may eventually yield to his demands out of concern that Washington could resume arming Kyiv, including providing strategic weapons capable of striking deep into Russian territory, potentially leading to severe military and economic strain for Moscow.
Earlier, Trump decided to halt the delivery of a batch of long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine — a move that sparked widespread controversy, especially after leaks about a phone call between Trump and Putin suggesting a potential “land for peace” deal. Trump reaffirmed this stance in a statement on November 2, saying he was “not currently considering” any deal that would allow Ukraine to acquire Tomahawk missiles for use against Russia.
Military aid remains Trump’s most powerful bargaining chip with Kyiv, as Ukraine realizes that the suspension of U.S. support would give Moscow a decisive advantage on the battlefield. This reality has pushed Kyiv’s European allies to rally behind it — particularly after the tense first meeting between Trump and Zelensky in late February.
Ukraine has been one of the largest recipients of U.S. assistance since World War II, with total military, economic, and humanitarian aid reaching about $175 billion by mid-2025. In March 2025, Trump unexpectedly froze military aid to Ukraine, alarming European allies before later announcing that he would review the decision and possibly resume limited shipments — a move widely interpreted as pressure on Zelensky to accept U.S. terms for ending the war.
Optimism initially rose when the first Trump–Putin summit was announced for August 15 in Alaska, focusing on two main issues: a ceasefire and a comprehensive political settlement. Yet the summit ended without tangible results. Trump admitted that “things didn’t work out,” acknowledging the absence of a ceasefire agreement, while vaguely insisting that “significant progress” had been made — without providing details or a roadmap.
Hopes then shifted to the planned Budapest Summit, which was expected to address the shortcomings of the Alaska meeting. However, Washington abruptly canceled the summit following a phone call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his U.S. counterpart Marco Rubio, who informed Trump that Moscow remained unwilling to negotiate unless Ukraine ceded more territory as a precondition for a ceasefire.
This marked a turning point in Trump’s stance toward Russia and Putin, triggered by an unofficial Russian document sent to Washington in October reiterating Moscow’s demand for full control over the Donbas region. This demand clashed with Trump’s vision of ending the war along current battle lines — effectively dividing Donbas — and with his pragmatic approach of mutual concessions, aimed at persuading Kyiv and its European allies that “zero-sum” outcomes were no longer viable given Russia’s territorial gains.
Trump had assumed that brokering peace in Ukraine would be straightforward — even easier than achieving peace in the Middle East. “I’ve always had a great friendship with Vladimir Putin,” he said in October, “but this has been deeply disappointing.” Yet Trump and his administration have since faced the complex realities of the war and each side’s strategic ambitions.
In Kyiv, the conflict is seen as a struggle for national sovereignty — a fight for political survival for Zelensky. For Putin, who initiated the war, a clear victory is now essential given its immense costs. With the battlefield momentum favoring Russia, Moscow is determined to extract maximum strategic gains.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is not standing alone against Trump’s pressure and Putin’s war machine. Europe remains a staunch supporter of Kyiv, viewing the conflict as a direct threat to continental security. European states have provided extensive aid to Ukraine throughout the war, reflecting their determination to prevent a Russian victory. They have also succeeded in convincing Washington that Ukraine’s war is critical to the future of the Western bloc, and that any strategy to resolve it must be rigorous and carefully planned.
Washington’s Escalation
It appears Trump has come to believe that relying on “carrots” — such as personal diplomacy with Putin — will not achieve his goal of ending the war. Consequently, he has shifted toward a “stick” approach, using pressure and sanctions against Moscow to compel it to accept his terms for a settlement. Two major developments highlight this shift:
- U.S. Sanctions on Russia’s Energy Sector:
On October 22, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed new sanctions targeting the Russian energy giants Rosneft and Lukoil.
Notably, even Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden — who took a firmer stance in support of Ukraine — had refrained from sanctioning these companies to avoid backlash from U.S. allies still engaged in energy trade with Russia and to prevent shocks to the global economy. If fully enforced, these sanctions would make any foreign bank think twice before processing payments for Russian crude, as Rosneft and Lukoil together account for over half of Russia’s oil production and exports. - Potential Authorization of Long-Range Missiles for Ukraine:
The Pentagon has reportedly given the White House the green light to supply Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles, leaving the final decision to Trump. While he ruled out the move on November 2, any reversal would mark a significant escalation — potentially leading to unpredictable consequences and heightened confrontation.
Meanwhile, on October 23, the European Union approved its 19th package of sanctions against Russia, including a ban on imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the addition of 117 more vessels from Moscow’s “shadow fleet,” bringing the total to 557 ships under sanction — part of efforts to tighten economic pressure on the Kremlin.
These escalatory steps by Washington may be designed to coerce Moscow into accepting Trump’s peace proposal. Yet the prospect of de-escalation remains uncertain, as both sides remain entrenched — particularly amid rising tensions between Trump and Putin. The tension has manifested in displays of nuclear capability, with Moscow announcing a successful test of a nuclear-powered missile on October 29, followed by Trump’s directive to the Pentagon to begin testing new U.S. nuclear weapons — signaling what may be the start of a new nuclear arms race.
A recent U.S. intelligence assessment further concluded that Putin is now more determined than ever to continue the war in Ukraine.
Conclusion
Given Trump’s unpredictable and often shifting policies, the prospects for peace in Ukraine remain highly uncertain. While ending the war is undoubtedly a central objective for Trump, achieving it will be anything but easy.
