In the 2024 campaign, US President Donald Trump controversially promised to resolve the Russian conflict in Ukraine “in 24 hours.” Three months into his tenure, the US head now seems to be in a hurry to lose forbearance with a stalled consensus process that is yielding few positive signs. Trump said on April 18 that he desired a ceasefire deal to be in place soon and would back off if Russia or Ukraine made it very challenging to achieve a peace agreement.
His most recent remarks indicate growing US exasperation. United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke on the same day in Paris, threatening that the US will soon withdraw from attempting to negotiate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine unless there is a breakthrough in the next few days. “We are now coming to a moment where we need to determine whether this is even feasible or not,” Rubio said to reporters.
It is easy to understand why the Trump White House is getting frustrated. While Ukraine signed up to a US offer of an absolute 30-day ceasefire on March 11, Moscow has yet to do so. Rather, Russia has made a long list of excuses and more conditions. This has resulted in claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not genuinely interested in peace and is intentionally playing stalling games in an attempt to prolong negotiations and keep fighting until he gains political dominance of Ukraine.
There have been numerous criticisms of Trump’s claim that he has been too hesitant to pressure Putin and has done nothing to make the Kremlin dictator believe that it is time to drop his invasion. They charge Trump with sending the wrong signal by always expressing willingness to grant concessions to Russia while taking a distinctly harder line on Ukraine. This has included repeated comments laying blame on Ukraine for Russia’s invasion.
In the very early phases of Trump’s peace initiative, the US has excluded the possibility of Ukraine being admitted to NATO. This was recently emphasised by US envoy General Keith Kellogg, who said that NATO membership for Ukraine is “off the table.” Kremlin officials welcomed the comments of Kellogg. “Of course, this is something that causes us satisfaction and aligns with our position,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
The US has also indicated that it wants Europe to take a frontline part in any peace agreement, including the establishment of security assurances for Ukraine in order to avert any repeat of Russia’s present invasion. This is being done as part of a larger foreign policy shift that appears destined to have the United States withdraw its traditional stake in European security in order to concentrate more on Asia.
Since taking office in January, he has warned to hit Putin’s energy sector and rolled over some of his current sanctions, but he has yet to take any further economic action against Moscow. When Trump announced historic new tariffs in early April, Moscow was among a small group of major economies left off the list.
American officials explained that the hold on tariffs came because bilateral trade had already de facto ceased with sanctions imposed after Russia’s February 2022 complete invasion of Ukraine. That being said, commerce with Russia is more than with several countries targeted by the new tariffs. In the meantime, Trump and other American officials have often hyped the possibility of increased economic collaboration between Moscow and Washington.
In the diplomatic sphere, the Trump administration has tried to steer clear of direct condemnation of Russia in acceptance of more balanced messaging that emphasises the necessity of peace. This has involved the United States aligning with Russia at the United Nations and voting against UN resolutions criticising the Russian invasion of Ukraine. US officials also reportedly declined to support a G7 group of nations statement criticising Russia’s recent Palm Sunday bombing of the Ukrainian city of Sumy, which resulted in dozens of civilian deaths.
Russia has welcomed gratefully the stunning recent change of direction in United States policy toward Russia’s seizure of Ukraine. In early March, Kremlin authorities observed that US foreign policy “largely coincides with our vision.” Putin has every reason to appreciate the Trump administration’s policy on Ukraine but, as yet, has no apparent interest in responding by granting any concessions at all. Far from it, actually. Since the initiation of bilateral negotiations with the United States in February, the Moscow military has more than doubled its bombing campaign on Ukrainian cities. Over the last few weeks, Russian forces have initiated a massive fresh spring campaign in Ukraine.
Russia’s bargaining position in present US-sponsored discussions is also a tough line and indicative of Russia’s ongoing insistence on bringing Ukrainian independence to an end. Moscow is insisting on formal recognition of Russian rule over four partially occupied Ukrainian provinces, an absolute cessation of all Western armed assistance to Kyiv, and the radical reduction of the Ukrainian army to a skeleton force, seemingly with the aim of leaving Ukraine vulnerable to a subsequent stage of Russia’s invasion.
Moscow’s unyielding present stance is a manifestation of Putin’s belief that he can ultimately wear down the West in Ukraine and that by refusing, he will get Trump to make further submissions. Putin’s reasoning thus far has worked. Trump’s attempts to win over the Kremlin have apparently led many in Moscow to believe that they are now well on their way to achieving a great triumph and have no need to make any serious privileges. If Trump is earnest about securing a lasting peace in Ukraine, he needs to show that he is willing to ratchet up the tension on Putin and raise the price of going on with the attack.
