Three years ago, on 24 February, Russia launched a fratricidal ‘special military operation’ against neighbouring Ukraine, triggering the bloodiest European war since 1945. What was planned as a week-long foray to remind the world of Russia’s red lines, became a grinding war of attrition, with Ukraine surprising the Russians with its resilience, warcraft and ability to channel western weaponry. A thousand days on, no clear winners have emerged. The belligerents have lost much blood and treasure, Ukraine is devastated, Russia weakened, Europe fragmented, the US frustrated and the rest of the world poorer through second order economic impacts.
European leaders shied away from peace attempts, dragging their feet on activating the Minsk accords of 2014-15, a format that could have helped the OSCE, Germany and France act as guarantors to a peace deal.
To be sure, Russia is now winning on the battlefield, holding a fifth of Ukraine’s territory, its nuclear weapons looming as a deadly threat. But what was surprising about the reaction to the war all these years was the absence of serious peace proposals to end it. European leaders shied away from peace attempts, dragging their feet on activating the Minsk accords of 2014-15, a format that could have helped the OSCE, Germany and France act as guarantors to a peace deal. Multiple other initiatives like the Swiss, Turkish, Chinese or Indian ones, were either half-hearted or half-baked, limited in ambition or in scope. The stark geopolitical reality was that it suited the collective west to weaken Russia, using Ukraine as a proxy. Any peace process became perfunctory without US will and Russian participation.
The art of the hurried deal
But the contours of a peace framework are finally emerging. If the endgame has a name, call it Donald Trump. Since assuming office on 20 January, Trump 2.0 has upended the global order and reversed US foreign policy. If his administration represents a far-right disruption within the US, it also embodies an unchecked impulse to reshape the global order with economic coercion accompanied by shock-and-awe diplomacy.
Though his claim that he would resolve Ukraine’s conflict in 24 hours was campaign bluster, his administration has since demonstrated tenacious resolve to override entrenched positions. Trump’s aversion to military entanglements is matched by his enthusiasm for weaponising tariffs, which he has wielded against adversaries and allies alike. But for all the chaos his presidency unleashes, Trump could spell an end to the shooting wars.
Trump’s team appears to endorse the view that the war in Europe was a consequence of America’s post-Cold War policy of NATO expansion, prosecuted in a heady unipolar moment when the end of history appeared to have arrived. Successive US administrations nudged the alliance eastward, disregarding Russian pushback in Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014. Ukraine was used as a proxy in this big power play, now geopolitical expediency determines its fate.
Trump’s aversion to military entanglements is matched by his enthusiasm for weaponising tariffs, which he has wielded against adversaries and allies alike.
Trump recognises that a deal to end the conflict must be struck directly between the US and Russia, between him and Putin, strongman to strongman. Involving other stakeholders in peace conferences is good optics but does not suit the objective of a quick Trumpian fix. Putin, dominant in the battlefield, has waited patiently to negotiate with Trump. The Russian leader will encounter an American counterpart who will not invoke a rules-based international order but acknowledge spheres of influence in a realist world based on the flow of power. The Ukraine endgame is thus likely to feature a ceasefire arrangement followed by a peace deal resembling Versailles after WWI (when the vanquished Germany was made to pay huge reparations) or Yalta after WWII (when the US and USSR carved out spheres of influence in Europe).
The Terms of Peace
The US terms had effectively been set even before formal talks began. Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Secretary of Defence, made clear that the US would not start with maximalist demands, but concede two of Putin’s key asks: that Ukraine would not join NATO and that its 2014 borders would not be restored. So Crimea’s annexation would stand, while Russia’s control over four eastern oblasts would be open to negotiation. In return, sanctions against Russia would be lifted, and Moscow would not object to Western Ukraine joining the EU or demand regime change in Kyiv.
The trickiest issue is security guarantees for Ukraine. Russia rejects peacekeeping troops, even under non-NATO flags. While Washington’s Ukraine policy appears inconsistent, its goal is clear: end the war. The early deal will require compromises—not necessarily a ‘just and sustainable’ peace, but an expedient one.
Trump’s aim is to end both wars that began on his predecessor’s watch. During his first term, Trump sought to withdraw from Afghanistan but was unable to oversee the final departure of US troops, a task that ultimately fell to Joe Biden. While his critics maintain that as in Afghanistan, Trump has ‘given away the farm’ in his desperation to get the Ukraine deal done, he appears determined this time to secure a resolution on his own timeline—perhaps within weeks. The prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize, alongside the political benefits of ending a costly war, my be enough motivation.
Trump’s aim is to end both wars that began on his predecessor’s watch. During his first term, Trump sought to withdraw from Afghanistan but was unable to oversee the final departure of US troops, a task that ultimately fell to Joe Biden.
Talks began on February 18 in Riyadh, a deliberate move away from traditional European venues like Geneva. The ‘Riyadh reset’ signifies Trump’s clever prioritisation of Saudi Arabia as a geopolitical mediator, not just in Ukraine but also for Gaza. Putin’s envoys were at the table with Trump's team—Ukrainian and European leaders were not. The impending Trump-Putin summit in Riyadh will likely finalise the deal, starting with a ceasefire before a formal peace agreement is reached.
Europe in disarray
Trump’s moves have left Europe reeling. At the Munich Security Conference, US Vice President JD Vance spoke bluntly of Europe’s decline. Two emergency summits in Paris reflected the panic: Europe faces a ‘two-front situation,’ with Russian aggression on one side and American hostility on the other. France’s Macron and Britain’s Starmer will soon travel to Washington to plead their case, while Germany’s new chancellor could be expected to follow as soon as the dust settles on a bruising election.
In Ukraine, Zelensky faces battlefield losses and Trump’s trolling. The US president sent his special envoy, Keith Kellogg, to Kyiv to humour the 'modestly successful comedian’ before dismissing Zelensky as a ‘dictator.’ Even before Zelensky suggested Trump was swayed by Russian disinformation, he had effectively lost any influence over negotiations.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was sent on what some described as an “extortionary” mission, seeking access to $ 500 billion of Ukraine’s strategic mineral reserves, in exchange for US support for the war effort.
Trump also wants to recover US funds pumped into Ukraine since Zelenskyy ‘talked the USA into spending $350 Billion, to go into a war that couldn’t be won.’ US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was sent on what some described as an “extortionary” mission, seeking access to $ 500 billion of Ukraine’s strategic mineral reserves, in exchange for US support for the war effort. This is an extension of Trump’s policy of geopolitics as real estate deals, with Greenland, Panama Canal, Gaza and even Canada targeted as potential additions to US territory.
A global realignment
The Ukraine settlement will be part of a broader strategic realignment. The US may need to recalibrate its relationship with Russia as it faces a greater challenge: China’s belligerent rise. The war has pushed Moscow closer to Beijing, but a resolution could create an opportunity to loosen that bond. Trump’s approach may mirror Nixon’s Cold War diplomacy, which sought in the 1970s to prise China from the Soviet Union—though this time, the roles are reversed.
For much of the world, an end to the war would bring economic relief. Sanctions have disrupted global markets, food supplies, and energy security. A resolution would stabilise energy flows, restore grain exports, and ease inflationary pressures. Trump’s presidency has undoubtedly introduced volatility, but it may also deliver peace in Ukraine. Whether this resolution proves lasting—or merely leads to another frozen conflict—will be decided by two strongmen in Riyadh.
This commentary originally appeared in the Indian Express.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
