When Donald Trump won the presidential elections in November 2024, one of his most repeated promises was to put an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. He argued that the conflict, dragging on for years and reshaping the security order of Europe, could be resolved quickly and easily under his leadership. He even repeatedly claimed that this crisis would never have occurred if he was the president at that time. Trump’s bold declarations raised expectations not only in the United States but also across the globe. However, it has now been nearly eight months since his return to the White House, and the war is still raging with no sign of resolution. His confident assurances that the matter would be wrapped up “within days” appear increasingly unrealistic as the ground reality proves more complicated than his rhetoric suggested. For the last few months, the Russia has increased the intensity of the attack and Ukraine seems to be on the receiving end.
In his efforts to end the war, Trump held a much-anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska couple of weeks ago. The meeting was presented as a breakthrough opportunity, yet the outcome was far from what the United States had hoped for. Rather than securing concessions, Trump left the summit having dropped key demands while Putin, with his characteristic resilience, emerged looking stronger. Russia managed to avoid the imposition of further sanctions, which had been considered a likely outcome of the talks, and the war continued without any substantial shift in dynamics. For many observers, the meeting highlighted how difficult it is for Trump to turn promises into action when confronted with the seasoned strategy of the Kremlin.
Perhaps the most striking outcome of the Alaska summit was Trump’s decision to step back from his earlier demand for an immediate ceasefire. Instead, he aligned himself with the Russian position of prioritizing a long-term peace deal over short-term halts in fighting. This adjustment in strategy has raised eyebrows in Europe and Ukraine, where leaders have consistently argued that a ceasefire is the first essential step before any durable peace can be negotiated. For Ukraine and its European allies, halting hostilities would allow much-needed breathing space for civilians, prevent further destruction of infrastructure, and create an environment for fair negotiations. By contrast, Trump’s embrace of Russia’s stance on skipping the ceasefire stage has fueled suspicions that Washington is now more concerned with ending its own entanglement in the conflict than ensuring a just settlement.
The proposed peace deal between Russia and the United States, as shaped in Alaska, centers around Moscow’s three major demands. First, Russia insists on the complete neutralization of Ukraine, meaning Kyiv must permanently abandon ambitions to join NATO or any Western defense bloc. This would fundamentally alter Ukraine’s foreign policy orientation, effectively shutting the door on decades of aspirations to integrate more closely with Europe. Second, Russia is demanding the demilitarization of Ukraine to a level where it would no longer pose any security threat to Moscow. In other words, Ukraine must opt not to gain offensive capabilities. Such a move would significantly weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty, leaving it vulnerable not only to future Russian pressure but also to instability within its own borders. Finally, Russia wants international recognition of its control over the 20 to 24 percent of Ukrainian territory it has seized since the war began. These include areas that are not only strategically important but also rich in resources and historically tied to Ukraine’s national identity.
For President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, these demands pose an impossible dilemma. Accepting them would likely secure an end to immediate bloodshed but at the cost of national sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. It would undermine the sacrifices of thousands of Ukrainians who have fought to defend their homeland. Domestically, Zelenskyy would face backlash from his people and political opposition, many of whom would see such concessions as capitulation. Externally, Ukraine’s allies in Europe and beyond might view the acceptance of Russia’s terms as a dangerous precedent, encouraging other powers to pursue expansionist agendas by force.
Meanwhile, the United States under Trump seems increasingly eager to shift responsibility for the war onto Ukraine and its European partners. Washington’s position is motivated in part by domestic political considerations. For him, securing a “historic peace deal” with Putin could be framed as a diplomatic triumph regardless of its cost to Ukraine. Yet such a strategy risks alienating European allies, who fear that American disengagement could leave them shouldering the burden of managing Russia’s aggression alone.
The current situation is therefore deeply complex and fraught with risks. On one side, Russia stands firm in its demands, emboldened by Trump’s willingness to move closer to its position. On the other, Ukraine and its European allies remain committed to preserving Kyiv’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, rejecting any peace deal that legitimizes territorial annexation or undermines future security. The United States, caught between its campaign promises and geopolitical realities, finds itself unable to deliver a clear breakthrough.
As months turn into years, the prospect of a swift resolution seems increasingly unlikely. Instead, what emerges is the picture of a drawn-out diplomatic deadlock, where promises of easy solutions collide with the harsh realities of war and geopolitics. Trump’s struggle to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a reminder that even the most confident leaders cannot simply will complex international crises into submission. More Importantly, the famous saying of Thucydides must be reminded here which sum up the situation between Russia and Ukraine as “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must”.
The author is a researcher, columnist, and the founder of Political Frontline. He holds a master degree in International Relations and has a wide experience of writing in various news forums on issues related to diplomacy, conflict and political economy. He tweets on @BarkatViews2.