Ukraine conflict: Endgame in sight?

Donald Trump’s victory in the US elections was met with scepticism in Moscow. Trump’s first term promised a reset with Russia; it Instead saw heightened tensions with new sanctions on Russian energy and the US withdrawing from the INF treaty. Moscow anticipated Trump’s second term would continue Biden’s Ukraine policies despite his campaign promises to end the war. However, since his inauguration, Moscow has warmed up to Trump’s approach, especially after he stopped further aid to Ukraine; furthermore, Washington’s commitment to ending the conflict was echoed by his aides. A significant shift in US policy became clear after a 90-minute call on February 12, where Trump and Putin discussed the need for lasting peace in Ukraine and agreed to peace talks in Saudi Arabia from February 18. In light of these new changes, three key questions arise about the potential territorial split, whether sanctions on Russia will be lifted, and the pushbacks Washington might face, including the question of US primacy in the European security architecture. The driving reasons for the change in US stance have largely been to re-focus Washington’s attention on containing China’s belligerence in the Indo-Pacific and to ensure that Moscow’s blooming relations with Iran, North Korea, and China do not strengthen any further. This is why certain demands of Moscow were conditionally factored in, such as a NATO membership for Ukraine being taken off the table and loosening the US position on Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The driving reasons for the change in US stance have largely been to re-focus Washington’s attention on containing China’s belligerence in the Indo-Pacific and to ensure that Moscow’s blooming relations with Iran, North Korea, and China do not strengthen any further.

During the phone call, both sides agreed to eliminate the root cause of the conflict and discussed the exchange of prisoners, the situation in the Middle East, and the Iran nuclear deal. Trump also announced the immediate start of negotiations between Moscow and Ukraine and appointed negotiators from the American side. After the telephone conversation, Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, sharing the details of the conversation with Putin. On February 18, Russian and American delegations met in Saudi Arabia, setting the metrics for a negotiated settlement; both sides agreed to appoint high-level teams for negotiations and aimed to re-establish diplomatic channels between Russia and the US. However, no specific remarks were made on the territorial split or sanctions relief. 

Softening stance

For Kyiv, Trump’s position on the conflict directly undermines Ukraine’s interests, contradicting the peace plan proposed by Zelensky last year. Zelensky has made it clear that he would reject any peace deal that excludes Ukraine from the negotiation process. On the other hand, Moscow welcomed Washington’s interest in ending the war, presenting these talks as a potential “second Yalta conference.”

Russia’s stance on Ukrainian territories has been quite complex; during the 2022 Istanbul talks, Moscow and Kyiv nearly reached an agreement where Russia would withdraw from the territories it had seized as long as Ukraine renounced its NATO ambitions and remained neutral. However, the deal collapsed due to a lack of Western support. Similarly, when Russian forces were advancing in Ukraine before the Swiss peace summit in Burgenstock last June, Putin called for Ukrainian forces to pull out from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions as a prerequisite for peace talks. With NATO membership off the table and European involvement limited, Russia is unlikely to maintain a hardline stance on territorial claims. A lasting peace and immediate cessation of hostilities remain unlikely in the short term. However, negotiations may lead to a general ceasefire followed by a phased de-escalation.

With NATO membership off the table and European involvement limited, Russia is unlikely to maintain a hardline stance on territorial claims.

Moscow may make further concessions in return for sanctions relief. Sanctions have significantly impacted Russian energy; more than 45% of Russia’s revenue came from energy trade. With European markets reducing consumption from Russia, oil and gas revenues from abroad have plummeted. However, the path to relief is long. More than 20,000 sanctions have been imposed against Russia, out of which the US has imposed more than 6,000.

Trump’s interest in bringing an end to war and the larger goal of focusing on countering China’s rise should not translate to the US giving up its core national interests in Europe. Trump has emphasised that US allies abroad must increase their defence spending to bulwark their adversary, reducing the burden on the US; Washington will continue to remain an important external balancer. One must note that Russia’s walking away from the negotiation will ultimately result in US support for Ukraine continuing. Thus, the outcome of various rounds of negotiations will be critical in understanding how the war in Ukraine could end.

This commentary originally appeared in Deccan Herald.

• International Affairs
• Russia and Eurasia
• USA and Canada
• China containment
• NATO policy
• peace talks
• sanctions
• Trump victory
• ukraine war
• US-Russia ties

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 NEXT