Ending wars not quite a cinch, Trump is finding out

Donald Trump began his second presidency with the promise that he would end the Russia–Ukraine war “within 24 hours” of coming to power. It’s been 10 months since, and Trump may have learnt the limits of his leverage.

The collapse of the planned Trump–Putin meeting in Budapest this October, after Moscow rejected Washington’s proposal to freeze the war along current frontlines, revealed how entrenched Russia’s demands are and how skilfully Vladimir Putin continues to manipulate the process. But it’s less a verdict on Trump’s manoeuvres and more a sign of how difficult it is to broker peace when one side insists on total victory. Recognising this, Trump has decided to change tack and rely on China’s cooperation.

Trump’s peace proposal was straightforward: stop the fighting and ‘freeze’ the conflict where it stands, creating space for negotiations later. He presented this as a pragmatic move to save lives and pave the way for a future settlement. Russia dismissed the idea outright, reiterating that any ceasefire must include Ukraine’s disarmament, withdrawal from the four occupied regions, and it must give up NATO ambitions.

Moscow even sent a memo to Washington repeating these hardline terms, which prompted the US to cancel the planned summit. Putin sees the negotiations not as a path to compromise but as a means to secure recognition of his gains.

It is also important to note how Putin frames the talks. The Kremlin’s approach mixes public firmness with tactical flexibility on process, not substance. It signals availability for dialogue while reasserting non-negotiable aims. It uses military escalation and de-escalation cycles to shape expectations. It employs symbolic gestures, including high-profile weapons tests and nuclear exercises, to underscore that it will not be coerced.

Last week, Russia launched the nuclear-powered submarine Khabarovsk, designed to carry the Poseidon ‘doomsday’ nuclear drone, underscoring Moscow’s renewed emphasis on strategic dominance. These moves are not aimed at Trump as much as leverage. Any American president seeking to broker a pause will meet the same fundamentals until Putin recalibrates objectives or feels sustained pressure that changes his incentives.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s choices bear significance for three audiences. For Ukraine, he has sought to keep channels open with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy while also pressing for ideas that could lower the tempo of war.

For Europe, he has repeatedly demanded that allies bear more of the security and financial load. For Russia, he has alternated between warnings of sanctions and offers of face-saving arrangements that could make a ceasefire seem more attractive. Balancing these tracks would be difficult at the best of times. Doing so when frontlines are fluid and domestic politics so contentious in Europe makes the task even harder.

Trump, for his part, has sought to keep the focus on ending bloodshed and finding an achievable starting point for talks. He has been consistent in saying that endless war benefits no one and that major powers must use their influence to bring both sides to the table. His challenge has been to turn that aspiration into leverage over a Russian leadership that views any concession as weakness.

Days after Washington imposed new sanctions on Russia’s energy giants, Putin staged nuclear drills and announced the successful test of a new nuclear-powered missile, boasting of its ‘unlimited range’. The timing sent a clear message: Moscow will not bow to pressure and will continue to link negotiations to its broader military and strategic agenda.

NATO and Europe now find themselves adjusting to this complex environment. The US announcement of a limited troop reduction in Eastern Europe — around 700 personnel from Germany, Romania and Poland — has stirred concern, but is officially described as part of a ‘balanced posture’ reflecting stronger European capabilities. European governments, meanwhile, are redoubling efforts to ensure Ukraine’s defence.

France and Germany have been leading calls for new security guarantees and even future peacekeeping arrangements if a ceasefire can be achieved. French President Emmanuel Macron has rallied more than two dozen countries behind a plan built on three pillars: bolstering Ukraine’s army, preparing a European-led security force, and maintaining an American safety net. The challenge is to keep all three aligned as the conflict drags on.

Putin, ever the opportunist, seeks to exploit any differences across the Atlantic. He accuses Europe of ‘hysteria’, offers side deals to sympathetic leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and fuels disinformation to fracture the unity of the alliance. By keeping dialogue open with Trump, he gains visibility and the appearance of legitimacy while continuing military operations. Delays benefit Moscow’s battlefield calculus. Yet Trump’s push for dialogue, however frustrating its results so far, has kept international attention focused on the need to end the war.

A notable dimension of Trump’s approach is his recognition that resolving the war may depend on bringing China into the equation. During his meeting with Xi Jinping in October, he stressed that Beijing “is going to help us and we’re going to work together on Ukraine”.

In a conflict where China has remained Russia’s main economic lifeline, any meaningful diplomatic progress will likely require Chinese engagement. Trump seems to understand that without Chinese participation, the threat of sanctions alone will not shift Moscow’s calculations.

Ukraine, while still resilient, is showing signs of fatigue. It has defended key cities like Pokrovsk under relentless Russian assault, while its leaders press for additional Western air defence support and energy protection ahead of another harsh winter. Each new wave of missile and drone attack underscores how distant peace still is.

Ukrainians want an end to the war but not at the price of surrendering their sovereignty. For mediators, including Trump, the big challenge is to find invisible common ground between Moscow’s ambitions and Kyiv’s unbroken will to retain sovereignty.

Ukraine is bracing for winter strikes on its grid, relocating civilians from the hardest hit areas, and rotating exhausted military units. Russia is testing weaknesses in Ukraine’s defence and looking for tactical gains that it can convert into bargaining power. Europe strengthens its defences while debating the best combination of support and deterrence. President Trump is searching for leverage to strike a deal.

The collapse of the Budapest plan is not the end of diplomacy, but it certainly is a reality check on how difficult genuine de-escalation will be.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. More of his writing may be read here