Trump Peace Play: Three Futures for Russia-Ukraine War

Russian and Ukrainian conflicting demands reveal a complex deadlock shaping the prospects of ceasefire and peace negotiations. During the August 15 meeting in Alaska between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump, Moscow articulated a set of preconditions that reflect its strategic objectives before the military operation in Ukraine. These demands included security guarantees preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, limiting the size of the Ukrainian armed forces, denying the presence of Western troops on Ukrainian soil, and the surrender of the Donbas region, where Russia currently controls approximately 88%. In exchange, Putin indicated a willingness to freeze Russian territorial gains in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia and to cede some captured areas in the Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk regions, highlighting Moscow’s attempt to solidify its gains while constraining Ukraine’s military capabilities.

On the ground, Russian forces continue to pursue control over the entire Donetsk region but face slow progress. The contested Zaporizhzhia region remains a hot spot, especially near the nuclear power plant seized early in the conflict. Despite Putin’s proposal to coordinate nuclear safety efforts with the United States, Kyiv firmly rejected this, demonstrating distrust in Moscow’s intentions and underscoring the heightened security risks embedded in the conflict.

In contrast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy prioritises an immediate ceasefire as a precursor to peace negotiations. Facing a depletion of resources and sustained military pressure, Kyiv seeks to halt hostilities before any major territorial concessions. Ukraine’s negotiating position, however, is comparatively weaker, relying primarily on Western political and military support. This was symbolised by the presence of several Western leaders during Zelenskyy’s meeting at the White House on Aug. 18, 2025, emphasising international backing for Kyiv’s call for a ceasefire.

Western allies have proposed the deployment of troops in Ukraine post-ceasefire to serve as a security guarantee. This idea encountered firm rejection from Putin, who warned that any foreign troops on Ukrainian territory would become “legitimate targets” for Russian forces. This stance underscores the deep strategic distrust that complicates efforts to establish a robust peace plan. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy insists on enhanced Western military assistance as a necessary element for Ukraine’s defence continuity.

The conflicting demands reveal a broader power struggle: Russia leverages its battlefield advances as pressure points, while Ukraine emphasises territorial integrity and seeks a credible European security guarantee to deter future Russian aggression. This fundamental opposition in goals and security perceptions continues to inhibit progress toward a durable resolution.

Source: Institute for the Study of War, 06/09/2025, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-6-2025/

Trump’s aspiration to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine reflects both his political ambitions and the complex realities of the conflict. Initially, before the Alaska summit, Trump aligned with Ukraine’s call for an immediate ceasefire, which emphasised halting hostilities as a prerequisite for any meaningful negotiation. However, following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump shifted to supporting Moscow’s broader call for a peace agreement, indicating a strategic recalibration that reflects his attempt to balance competing demands amid high geopolitical tension.

On August 18, Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House revealed a nuanced and somewhat ambiguous U.S. stance. While granting vague assurances about security guarantees for Ukraine, he underscored the prominent role Europe would play in such protection. This emphasis on Europe’s responsibility suggests a possible U.S. intention to minimise direct American military involvement, which could affect Ukraine’s calculus regarding its security dependencies. Furthermore, Trump announced plans for a trilateral summit involving himself, Putin, and Zelenskyy, expecting first a bilateral meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents. This staged approach appears designed to foster direct dialogue between the two conflicting parties, with the U.S. positioning itself as a mediator rather than a primary actor in the resolution.

Trump’s visible motivation to secure the Nobel Peace Prize and establish a legacy as a peacemaker underscores the political dimensions underpinning his mediation efforts. This ambition arguably adds urgency to his push for a resolution but also raises questions about the depth and sustainability of his engagement. The entrenched nature of both sides’ demands—Russia’s insistence on security guarantees and territorial gains versus Ukraine’s focus on sovereignty and territorial integrity—renders the prospect of a swift, mutually acceptable resolution highly challenging. Therefore, Trump’s role becomes a delicate balancing act, with limited room for errors that could escalate the conflict.

U.S. interest in a peace arrangement is derived from the necessity of having stability in the country to benefit from the minerals deal signed with Ukraine. The deal entitles the U.S. to extract minerals from Ukrainian soil in exchange of future American military assistance to the country. The continuous of the war would mean the possibility of Russia gaining control of such resources or risk being drained due to Russian strikes. Although such a deal doesn’t entail Kyiv with the security reassurances, nevertheless, putting an end to the conflict is crucial for Trump’s economic interests.

His cautious approach with Putin during their discussions fits a calculated strategy to avoid exacerbating military operations, which could derail peace efforts. It also reflects an understanding of the intricate dilemma the conflict poses: crafting a peace agreement that can realistically satisfy both Moscow and Kyiv’s core demands seems improbable without significant compromises. Trump’s success in translating his rhetoric into tangible progress depends not only on diplomatic skills but also on both powers’ readiness to negotiate amid continued hostilities and broader geopolitical pressures.

The question of whether history will repeat itself in the Russia-Ukraine conflict inevitably evokes the lessons of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. This agreement, signed by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, was meant to guarantee Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and security in exchange for its voluntary nuclear disarmament. At the time, Ukraine agreed to relinquish the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, trusting the major powers’ assurances to respect its borders and political independence. Yet, the ongoing war has starkly exposed the weaknesses of these guarantees. Russia’s subsequent military actions—launching a full-scale operation against Ukraine—demonstrate that these promises lacked effective enforcement mechanisms and failed to deter aggressive behaviour when Moscow perceived its security interests as threatened.

The failure of the Budapest Memorandum profoundly reshaped Ukraine’s strategic calculus. Rather than reassuming trust in similar security arrangements, Kyiv now views such agreements with deep scepticism. The memorandum is widely regarded in Ukraine as a cautionary tale illustrating the limits of diplomatic assurances without binding enforcement or credible deterrence. This historical precedent significantly complicates any attempts to negotiate new security guarantees that resemble the Budapest framework, as Ukraine is unlikely to accept agreements that do not provide tangible and enforceable protections for its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Moreover, the broader international response to Russia’s 2022 invasion highlights the challenges Western powers face in balancing diplomatic commitments with geopolitical realities. While economic sanctions and military aid have supported Ukraine to some extent, they have not succeeded in compelling Moscow to cease hostilities or withdraw from occupied territories. This experience further questions the viability of relying on diplomatic memoranda alone to secure lasting peace.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s mediation efforts enter a highly complex environment where past failures weigh heavily on diplomatic prospects. The historical lessons embedded in the Budapest Memorandum imply that any proposed peace arrangement must overcome deep-rooted mistrust and address the enforcement gap that rendered previous guarantees ineffective. The failure of the 1994 agreement effectively opens the door to multiple possible scenarios, each shaped by the interplay of evolving strategic interests, military realities, and international diplomacy.

Ultimately, the historic failure of the Budapest Memorandum underscores the critical importance of designing security guarantees with credible enforcement mechanisms and active international engagement. Without this, efforts to broker peace risk repeating past mistakes, leaving Ukraine vulnerable and regional stability precarious. This context informs the prospects and challenges facing current mediation attempts, including those led or influenced by Trump, and highlights the complex road ahead for durable conflict resolution in the region.

Potential scenarios for peace efforts suggest a complex and highly contested resolution process, with the most likely outcome favouring Russian objectives more than Ukrainian interests.

The first and dominant scenario envisions a comprehensive political settlement largely advantageous to Russia. Such an agreement would involve territorial concessions by Ukraine—most notably formalizing Russian control over the Donbas region—and the gradual lifting of Western sanctions targeting Moscow. This scenario echoes elements of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which involved Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership in exchange for security assurances. Under this framework, Ukraine would be compelled to accept stringent Russian demands, surrender parts of its sovereign territory, and commit to a neutral status outside the Western military alliance.

From the U.S. perspective, particularly under Trump’s mediation, this scenario involves offering tangible incentives to Moscow. These may include phased sanctions relief and a potential halt to American military aid to Ukraine. In parallel, a peace settlement could facilitate the resumption of grain exports through the Black Sea, albeit under Russian security control—thus consolidating Moscow’s strategic leverage over regional trade routes and global food security.

For Ukraine, such a peace agreement represents a significant violation of national sovereignty and security. Ceding territory to Russia and renouncing NATO accession would weaken Kyiv’s future defence posture and political legitimacy. To mitigate this vulnerability, the scenario envisages “Article 5-like” security guarantees—multilateral defence commitments modelled on NATO’s collective defence principle—intended to provide Kyiv with some protection against renewed aggression. However, Trump has emphasized that direct U.S. troop engagement in Ukraine would be unlikely, with Washington expecting European allies to assume primary security responsibilities while the U.S. plays a limited backup role. This position aligns with broader U.S. strategic priorities to minimize direct involvement in foreign conflicts while endorsing allied support frameworks.

Domestically, the acceptance of such a deal by Ukraine could provoke political instability. President Zelenskyy and his government might face public backlash and pressure to resign, creating an opportunity for a pro-Russian political figure—potentially favoured or supported by U.S. interests—to rise. This political shift would effectively alter Kyiv’s strategic orientation and diplomacy, aligning it more closely with Moscow’s terms under international supervision.

Trump’s promotion of this scenario reflects both diplomatic ambition and political calculation. Achieving a peace deal under these terms would consolidate his image as a capable mediator and peace broker, a legacy-enhancing outcome. Additionally, redirecting resources currently dedicated to Ukraine’s military and economic support back to domestic priorities fits with Trump’s “America First” approach, emphasizing the reallocation of U.S. funds.

Despite its political appeal to some actors, this scenario faces significant obstacles. Zelenskyy has consistently rejected any agreement involving territorial concessions, and Ukraine’s parliament is unlikely to ratify such terms. Moreover, the continued instability and tension in the Donbas region suggest that any formal peace settlement that compromises Ukrainian territorial integrity risks igniting renewed local conflicts. Thus, while this first scenario is the most probable given the current geopolitical and diplomatic pressures, it remains fraught with risks of further fragmentation and violence in eastern Ukraine.

The collapse of peace talks constitutes a highly probable second scenario, driven by the entrenched positions of Russia and Ukraine, making negotiations unlikely to succeed. As both sides remain firmly committed to their demands, diplomatic efforts risk failure, prolonging the conflict with a reduced intensity of military engagements due to the depletion of resources and capabilities. This prolonged stalemate is expected to manifest in continued but less frequent clashes along the front lines and within Russian-held territories, where attrition will increasingly constrain operations.

In this scenario, targeted assassinations of key political and military figures on both sides could further destabilize the conflict environment. Both Moscow and Kyiv will face significant shortages in ammunition and manpower, which will slow the pace of offensives, particularly in the protracted battle for control over the Donbas region, resulting in a de facto maintenance of the status quo. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant will remain a critical and dangerous flashpoint, with its security and operational safety an ongoing source of tension and potential escalation.

The West’s sanctions regime against Russia is expected to persist, maintaining economic pressure despite limited diplomatic breakthroughs. Within the United States, the Trump administration is likely to push for reducing or halting aid to Ukraine; however, ongoing military and economic support will continue at levels insufficient to enable major Ukrainian offensives. This limited assistance will constrain Kyiv’s capacity to shift the battlefield dynamics decisively.

This scenario gains credence from recent diplomatic behaviours: Putin’s steadfast refusal to engage in direct talks with Zelenskyy underscores Moscow’s rigid negotiation stance, while Kyiv insists on non-negotiable sovereignty demands and advocates for direct bilateral dialogue, consistent with Trump’s positioning. The failure to secure even a temporary ceasefire reveals the disconnect between Trump’s ambitious mediation rhetoric and the practical realities on the ground.

Longer term, this protracted stalemate raises serious questions about sustained European and American support for Ukraine. The growing financial and military burdens may prompt Western allies to reassess their commitments amid domestic pressures and geopolitical calculations, potentially undermining Kyiv’s resilience. Thus, this scenario reflects a grim outlook where peace remains elusive, military exhaustion shapes the conflict’s intensity, and international support faces increasing uncertainty.

The third scenario envisions a ceasefire that effectively freezes the frontlines without producing a comprehensive peace settlement. This outcome represents the most favourable option for Ukraine under current conditions, as it would halt Russian offensives in Eastern and Southern Ukraine and end drone attacks targeting both military and civilian infrastructure. Moreover, a ceasefire would enable Kyiv to consolidate its defensive positions and benefit from increased ammunition supplies facilitated by the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP), which seeks to bolster European production capacity to meet Ukraine’s military needs.

Humanitarian considerations also underscore the benefits of a ceasefire. Stabilisation of the conflict zone is critical for the return of displaced Ukrainians and the initiation of post-war recovery efforts focused on rebuilding Ukraine’s battered economy. The cessation of hostilities would provide a necessary window for reconstruction and social stabilisation, which are indispensable for long-term resilience.

For Russia, however, a frozen conflict line would translate into de facto control over approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory, including significant areas in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea, without securing formal international recognition of these gains. This scenario would maintain Moscow’s strategic advantages on the battlefield while avoiding the political and diplomatic costs of a negotiated settlement favouring Ukraine. The prospect of “land swapping”, previously hinted at by Trump, would represent a severe territorial loss for Kyiv embedded within the ceasefire framework, further complicating Ukraine’s position. Nevertheless, Western sanctions on Russia would continue unabated, sustaining economic and political pressure despite the lack of a formal peace treaty.

Politically, a ceasefire would bolster Trump’s image as a “peacemaker”, an accolade he has actively pursued since his second term. It would enhance his legacy by portraying him as a key factor in halting active hostilities, even if a lasting resolution remains elusive. Meanwhile, European allies would likely intensify their economic and military support for Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts, shifting focus from battlefield operations to long-term recovery and stabilisation.

Given the protracted nature of the conflict and the heavy losses incurred over more than three years, this armistice scenario appears the most plausible in the near term. It would create a pragmatic pause, allowing both Ukraine and Russia to reassess and rebuild their military capacities and economies. Potential negotiations for a permanent peace deal could then become feasible in the foreseeable future, contingent on sustained adherence to ceasefire terms and broader geopolitical developments.

To conclude, Trump’s mediation efforts have the potential to catalyse peace talks by providing a diplomatic framework and encouraging direct communication. Nonetheless, the depth of the conflict’s underlying issues and the divergent strategic goals of Russia and Ukraine suggest that achieving a durable peace agreement will require more than high-profile summits—it will demand painstaking negotiation, mutual concessions, and coordinated international support to address security and political realities on the ground.

Atlantic Council experts. “Twenty questions (and expert answers) about the negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.” Atlantic Council, August 29, 2025, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/twenty-questions-and-expert-answers-about-the-negotiations-to-end-russias-war-in-ukraine/

Brennan, David and Panagrosso, Kayla. “Ukraine, left out in Trump-Putin summit, fears setbacks on key peace issues.” ABC News, August 14, 2025, Accessed September 5, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-left-trump-putin-summit-fears-setbacks-key/story?id=124608507&utm_source=chatgpt.com

Budjeryn, Mariana and Bunn, Matthew. “Budapest Memorandum at 25: Between Past and Future.” March, 2020, Accessed September 7, 2025. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/budapest-memorandum-25-between-past-and-future?_gl=1*1k1w7ik*_gcl_au*NTQ5ODY1OTEzLjE3NTQ3NTcwNDg.*_ga*MTk5NTM0OTI2My4xNzU0NzU3MDQ5*_ga_72NC9RC7VN*czE3NTcyNDM3MzIkbzIkZzEkdDE3NTcyNDQ1MjQkajYwJGwwJGg2MjIzNTI0NTY.#footnote-1

Butenko, Victoria, et. al. “US and Ukraine sign critical minerals deal after months of tense negotiations.” CNN World, May 1, 2025, Accessed September 7, 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/30/europe/ukraine-us-mineral-deal-intl

Daalder, Ivo. “Trump isn’t the peacemaker he thinks he is”, Politico, August 18, 2025, Accessed September 7, 2025. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-peace-us-russia-nato-drc-m23-rebels/

European Commission. “The Commission allocates €500 million to ramp up ammunition production, out of a total of €2 billion to strengthen EU’s defence industry.” March 15, 2024, Accessed September 5, 2025. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1495?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Gia Ky, Bui. “Trump has won the strategic game of the next hundred years.” Modern Diplomacy, August 18, 2025, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/08/18/trump-has-won-the-strategic-game-of-the-next-hundred-years/

Hutzler, Alexandra. “Key takeaways from Trump and Zelenskyy’s meeting, pivotal talks with European leaders.” ABC News, August 19, 2025, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/key-takeaways-trump-zelenskyys-oval-office-meeting-discuss/story?id=124751645

Kottasová, Ivana and Butenko, Victoria. “Here’s what’s in Trump’s Ukraine minerals deal and how it affects the war.” CNN World, May 1, 2025, Accessed September 7, 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/01/world/what-we-know-about-trumps-ukraine-mineral-deal-intl

Lough, John. “Four scenarios for the end of the war in Ukraine.” Chatham House, October, 2024, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/2024-10-16-scenarios-end-war-ukraine-lough.pdf

McFall, Caitlin. “Putin issues formal demands to end Ukraine war after meeting with Trump: report.” Fox News, August 21, 2025, Accessed September 2, 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-issues-formal-demands-end-ukraine-war-after-meeting-trump-report

Murra, Warren. “Ukraine war briefing: No action from Trump as another Putin deadline passes.” The Guardian, September 3, 2025, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/03/ukraine-war-briefing-no-action-from-trump-as-another-putin-deadline-passes

Myre, Greg. “After meeting Putin, Trump changes his position on the need for a ceasefire.” NPR, August 17, 2025, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/17/g-s1-83183/putin-trump-ceasefire

Osborn, Andrew et. al. “Putin tells Ukraine: End war via talks or I will end it by force.” Reuters, September 3, 2025, Accessed September 5, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-tells-ukraine-end-war-via-talks-or-i-will-end-it-by-force-2025-09-03/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Osmolovska, Iuliia, et. al. “Seven Security Scenarios on Russian War in Ukraine for 2025 – 2026: Implications and Policy Recommendations to Western Partners.” GLOBSEC, June, 2025, Accessed September 5, 2025. https://www.globsec.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/Seven%20Security%20Scenarios%20on%20Russian%20War%20in%20Ukraine%20for%202025%20-%202026%20Implications%20and%20Policy%20Recommendations%20to%20Western%20Partners.pdf

Ott, Haley and Chau, Nicole Brown. “Maps show Ukrainian territories claimed by Russia amid talks on possible end to war.” CBS News, August 19, 2025, Accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maps-ukrainian-territories-claimed-by-russia-war/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Pekar, Valerii and Dligach, Andrii. “Scenarios for the end of the war.” New Eastern Europe, September 1, 2025, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://neweasterneurope.eu/2025/09/01/scenarios-for-the-end-of-the-war/

“Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 31, 2025.” Institute for the Study of War (ISW), August 31, 2025, Accessed September 5, 2025. https://understandingwar.org/research/russia/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-31-2025/

Singh, Kanishka and Jones, Ryan Patrick. “Trump says he is disappointed with Putin, not worried about China-Russia ties.” Reuters, September 3, 2025, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-says-he-is-disappointed-with-putin-not-worried-about-china-russia-ties-2025-09-02/

Vakulina, Sasha. “Analysis: What happened to Trump’s deadline for Russia’s reality check.” Euro News, September 2, 2025, Accessed September 3, 205. https://www.euronews.com/2025/09/02/two-more-weeks-what-happened-to-trumps-deadline-for-russias-reality-check

Walsh, Nick Paton. “Five ways the Russia-Ukraine war could end.” CNN, August 7, 2025, Accessed September 3, 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/07/europe/analysis-how-russia-ukraine-war-ends-latam-intl

Winsor, Morgan and Pshemyskiy, Oleksiy. “Foreign troops in Ukraine would be considered ‘legitimate targets’ to Russia, Putin says.” ABC News, September 5, 2025, Accessed September 7, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/International/foreign-troops-ukraine-considered-legitimate-targets-russia-putin/story?id=125296415