Ukraine and Russia: A shift in US policy

President Trump said during the US election campaign that a negotiated peace between Ukraine and Russia would be a priority for his administration.

US efforts to achieve an interim 30-day ceasefire are underway and the US view is that a longer-term peace agreement can only be negotiated once hostilities have ceased.

Initial US diplomatic efforts appear to have prioritised a reset of relations with Russia, while increasing pressure on Ukraine to come to the negotiating table and potentially accept peace terms that may be less favourable to Ukraine than those President Zelenskyy had previously been pushing for in his 2022 Peace Formula and his October 2024  Victory Plan.

In recent weeks, the US administration has suggested Ukraine’s aims for NATO membership are unrealistic as part of any peace agreement and that it must be “prepared to do difficult things”, which has been widely interpreted as ceding territory. Many of the comments made by senior Trump administration officials since early February 2025, seem to align with the demands set out by President Putin in June 2024, when he said that Ukraine and its allies must accept the new territorial realities on the ground and that Ukraine must renounce its ambitions to join NATO.

In early March 2025, the US temporarily suspended military assistance to, and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, accusing Ukraine of a lack of commitment to “any sort of peace process”.

A reset of US-Russia relations

During a telephone conversation on 12 February 2025, President Trump and President Putin agreed to reset US-Russian relations and re-establish dialogue on “topics of mutual interest”, including the possible settlement of the Ukraine conflict.

The first round of bilateral talks took place in Saudi Arabia on 18 February 2025 and was the first meeting between US and Russian officials in over three years. Both sides agreed to take steps to normalise diplomatic relations and to appoint high-level teams to begin working on a Ukraine peace agreement. 

The US had faced criticism prior to the meeting for the absence of Ukrainian or European representation at the talks. President Zelenskyy said that Ukraine would not accept any agreements made without the country’s involvement and warned against trusting “Putin’s claims of readiness to end the war”. EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, accused President Trump of appeasing Russia.

The Trump administration has also appeared to soften its approach to Russia in other areas, moving to disband various taskforces combating Russian disinformation, preventing sanctions evasion by Russian oligarchs and investigating war crimes in relation to the Ukraine conflict. The US Department of Defense has also suspended offensive cyber operations against Russia.

A summit meeting between President Trump and President Putin is expected to happen as a direct result of this reset in relations, although a timeframe is not yet clear.

A US divergence from Europe?

The Trump administration’s approach to Ukraine and its increasing rapprochement with Russia has been in stark contrast to the approach of most European leaders (with the exception of Hungary) and the European Union who have continued to express unwavering support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. The UK and the EU have also continued to adopt sanctions against Russia.

The increasing divergence between the US and Europe over Ukraine policy was evident at the United Nations in February 2025, when the US voted with Russia in two votes marking the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. Prior to the UN votes, President Trump had caused consternation among allies by refusing to refer to Russia as the aggressor in statements marking the third anniversary of the conflict, and by suggesting that Ukraine had started the war.

The US’s rapprochement with Russia also comes at a time when the US commitment to European security has been questioned. The response by European nations has been to begin the process of increasing defence spending, find innovative ways to continue supporting Ukraine and to start making plans for European rearmament.

Europe explores a ‘coalition of the willing’

Although not part of formal diplomatic talks over a possible ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine, European leaders, led by the UK and France, have also been working on plans for a ‘coalition of the willing’, to provide Ukraine with security guarantees that will ensure any eventual peace agreement.

The US has said it will not deploy troops to Ukraine as part of any security guarantee. Instead it has argued that an agreement between the US and Ukraine over access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of rare earth minerals and other critical raw materials would give the US a vested economic interest in the future of the country and would be a better security guarantee for Ukraine than any form of miliary commitment. Russia has also categorically rejected the deployment of European peacekeepers in Ukraine.  

What does this mean for peace in Ukraine?

Concerns have been expressed that the US’ approach of putting maximum pressure on Ukraine and softening its rhetoric towards Russia will result in a “weak” peace deal that largely favours Russia and provides little in the way of security guarantees for Ukraine against future Russian aggression.

President Zelenskyy has accepted US proposals for a 30-day interim ceasefire and to begin talks immediately on “an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security”. In response, US military assistance and intelligence sharing with Ukraine was immediately reinstated.

The United States has made clear that Russian reciprocity is crucial to achieving peace. In a televised press conference on 13 March, however, President Putin said that while Russia supported the US ceasefire proposal, there were issues, or “nuances”, that needed to be discussed first.

President Trump said that President Putin’s position was “promising but incomplete” and that he would welcome the opportunity to talk to, or meet with, President Putin directly. He said that resolving the situation “shouldn’t be very complicated” and that if Russia did not engage it would be “a very disappointing moment for the world”.

A telephone call between President Trump and President Putin on 18 March 2025 is not considered to have offered the breakthrough that President Trump was hoping for. President Putin did not agree to the full ceasefire proposed by the US, although he did agree to an interim proposal to halt strikes against energy infrastructure for a period of 30 days and to begin negotiations on a full ceasefire. Russia also reiterated its conditions for moving negotiations forward, including the need to “eliminate the root causes of the crisis” and for a halt to foreign military aid to Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy said President Putin’s response was “highly predictable and manipulative” and that Russia was “surrounding the ceasefire idea with such preconditions that it either fails or gets dragged out for as long as possible”.

An energy infrastructure moratorium and a Black Sea ceasefire?

Efforts to achieve a 30-day moratorium on targeting energy infrastructure has been undermined, by both sides, as attacks on infrastructure have continued.

Talks held in Saudi Arabia at the end of March 2025 sought to get firm commitments from Russia and Ukraine on observing the energy infrastructure moratorium, along with progress toward a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea.

Agreements were reportedly reached on both elements. After talks concluded, however, Russia outlined its demands for sanctions relief, which it said would be a prerequisite for any maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea to take effect.

President Zelenskyy accused President Putin of manipulation, while UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer questioned Russia’s commitment to the peace process.  

What next?

Decisions on providing sanctions relief to Russia, and specifically Russia’s demand for the Russian Agricultural Bank to be reconnected to the SWIFT international payments system, are not decisions that the United States can take unilaterally and will require the agreement of the EU. On 26 March a European Commission spokesperson said sanctions would not be lifted until Russia unconditionally withdraws its military forces from the entire territory of Ukraine. The US has said that it is currently evaluating Russia’s latest demands.

At the time of writing, further talks on a settlement in Ukraine have yet to be confirmed. US frustration with Russia has surfaced after President Putin went on to suggest on 28 March that a UN-supervised interim government be installed in Ukraine, which could then hold elections for a more “capable government” with which Russia could begin peace talks.

President Trump expressed his anger, saying that such proposals were “not going in the right location” and suggested, not for the first time, that the US would consider imposing sanctions in response.

In an interview on 1 April, Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergey Ryabkov went a step further and said Russia could not accept the US proposals as they currently stand, as they fail to address what Russia has referred to as “the root causes of the conflict”.