The new US administration has sparked discussions regarding potential negotiations with Russia concerning the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump has identified resolving this issue as a top priority. Russia has indicated its willingness to engage in dialogue based on the Istanbul agreements established in 2022. Following Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, there could indeed be an opportunity for talks. However, several negative factors overshadow these prospects, casting doubt on both the effectiveness of the negotiations and the durability of any resulting agreements.
Several conditions could motivate the United States to initiate contact with Moscow. Firstly, there is the anticipation of heightened tensions on the Ukrainian front, which could lead to further territorial losses for Kyiv and military gains for Russia. A frozen conflict might provide Ukraine with the necessary pause to regroup. Secondly, there are financial constraints. Supporting Ukraine requires substantial financial investment, amounting to tens of billions of dollars, which, while justifiable for containing Russia, raises concerns about long-term sustainability amidst competing budgetary pressures. Thirdly, President Trump’s political ambitions may drive him to seek a resolution to the costly conflict under terms favorable to the US, potentially framing it as a diplomatic accomplishment. The fourth consideration is the danger of escalating the conflict into a direct military confrontation with Russia, which could undermine US strength in its rivalry with China. Fifth, US adversaries, including North Korea and Iran, benefit from Moscow’s backing, adding further complexity to the situation. Lastly, although Western sanctions and other measures have inflicted significant damage on Russia, they have failed to deter Moscow from pursuing its foreign policy goals in Europe.
On the Russian side, the motivations for negotiations are less clear. Despite the strain of high defense spending, Moscow retains the capability to continue military operations without significant mobilization. The Russian military is gradually applying pressure, albeit slowly, while any potential escalation resulting from Western missile strikes may provoke increased retaliation from Russia. Moscow’s openness to dialogue doesn’t guarantee a willingness to compromise, and the existing gap between the negotiating positions of the US and Russia appears substantial, making genuine rapprochement unlikely.
Trust between the parties is nearly non-existent. Lessons from the recent Minsk agreements have led Moscow to believe that new agreements may not be implemented, as their terms could be broadly interpreted and manipulated. Human perspectives on past events enhance this lack of trust, especially concerning the post-Cold War European security landscape. The Russian leadership perceives Western actions over the last 30 years as attempts to exploit Cold War outcomes, undermining the principle of equal and indivisible security.
Furthermore, the possibility of renewed hostilities could arise if Ukraine is given time to regroup, retrain, and rearm. To counter such a scenario, Russia would likely need to maintain a significant military presence near the Ukrainian border. This militarization extends to Ukraine, the West, and Russia itself, complicating Moscow’s satisfaction with merely freezing the conflict, while Washington and its allies may resist making tough commitments.
Military and non-military escalations intended to strengthen negotiating positions would likely backfire, potentially including exchanges of missile strikes or the deployment of NATO contingents in Ukraine. Such developments could render future agreements unrealistic.
Moreover, certain negotiating “carrots” may lack substance. For instance, Washington might agree not to invite Ukraine to NATO, but current conditions make such an invitation unlikely anyway. The deepening military and political ties between Ukraine and the West negate the necessity for formal NATO membership, leaving security guarantees uncertain. Another empty promise lies in the proposal to lift sanctions against Russia. Historical interactions with adversaries like North Korea and Iran show that the US is slow to ease sanctions, often complicating the process with additional conditions.
Lastly, the fundamental issues of European security that triggered the Ukraine crisis remain unresolved. Trump may express a desire to conclude the conflict, but he’s unlikely to contemplate broader security agreements with Moscow, which is not seen as a partner for establishing new principles on an equal footing. American diplomacy is likely to attempt to de-escalate the conflict through mutual concessions. Even if such agreements are reached, they may only serve as a temporary reprieve rather than addressing the underlying contradictions behind the crisis. A cessation of hostilities in Ukraine would not signify the end of the broader confrontation between Russia and the West. Historical precedents show that, even after brutal conflicts, a temporary silence can prevail, leading to prolonged periods of political estrangement, as seen in the Korean War. The question may not be whether hostilities will cease by 2025, but rather how durable that cessation will be.
Comments