Is it possible to end Trump and Putin's «peace game»?

It is impossible to reach an agreement with Putin on ending the war. However, U.S. President Donald Trump stubbornly continues his efforts to encourage Putin toward peace, despite the fact that the latter openly ignores any peace proposals from Washington and Kyiv.

How long does Trump intend to keep playing this endless «peace game» while Ukrainian civilians die every day from Russian terrorist strikes? After all, the Donald Trump administration has still been unable to find effective leverage over Moscow.

Trump’s problem is not a lack of diplomatic contacts, but rather that the Kremlin does not yet see a high enough price for refusing peace. The tragic events of September 23–24 illustrate this well: following Washington’s negotiation activity, Russia struck Ukraine again, and Putin’s henchman Lavrov explicitly stated at the UN Security Council that Moscow would not halt hostilities even during negotiations.

There come moments when diplomatic formulas cease to be diplomacy and turn into a political backdrop. This is the exact point where the American strategy for ending the Russia-Ukraine war finds itself today.

Washington is once again in talks with Moscow. Donald Trump’s special envoys are traveling to the Kremlin, the US administration is maintaining a negotiation channel, and new ceasefire formats are being discussed, while Trump himself continues to assert that the war must be ended through diplomatic means. Ukraine, for its part, is demonstrating a readiness for concrete agreements, particularly regarding the cessation of strikes on energy infrastructure.

And what is Moscow doing? In response to regular diplomatic initiatives, Russia launches new strikes against Ukraine. On September 23, Russian drones attacked Kyiv, resulting in fatalities, dozens of injuries, and damage to civilian and critical infrastructure. The following day, new Russian strikes on Kyiv and northeastern Ukraine again led to loss of life.

And then at the UN Security Council, Sergey Lavrov put an end to all illusions regarding Russia’s vision of the negotiation process: Moscow, according to him, is ready to talk about a ‘durable and just peace’ but does not intend to cease hostilities for the duration of the negotiations.

This is exactly where the main problem of American diplomacy lies. Moscow agrees to negotiations but does not agree to the conditions that make negotiations an instrument for ending the war. And this is not a contradiction. This is a strategy.

The Kremlin perfectly understands the difference between «talking about peace» and «stopping the war». The former allows it to maintain a diplomatic channel, demonstrate a formal readiness for negotiations to an international audience, and simultaneously sustain military pressure. The latter deprives Moscow of one of its main levers of influence.

In this regard, the Russian position today follows a «logic» that is entirely rational from the perspective of the Kremlin’s strategy: negotiations – yes, a cessation of hostilities – no.

And this is fundamentally important for evaluating Donald Trump’s policy. The American president’s problem is not that he does not speak with Putin enough. The problem is that the negotiations themselves have still not turned into a diplomatic lever. Trump stubbornly and hopelessly tries to convince Putin to reach a deal. But the question lies elsewhere: what will force Putin to agree?

International politics rarely operates on the principle of moral persuasion. Especially when it comes to a state that has been waging a full-scale war for over four years, paying a huge price for it, and yet continues to believe that military pressure can improve its negotiating position.

Under these circumstances, calls for peace yield limited results; a shift in strategic calculus is required. Putin must be brought to realize that continuing the war will be more costly for Russia than reaching a compromise.

Yet, at this stage, American policy confronts a fundamental dilemma. If Washington seeks a diplomatic resolution to the war, Moscow must be made to see not only the potential benefits of a peace deal but also the tangible costs of refusing it.

This is the classic logic of coercive diplomacy: negotiations work not only when the parties have something to agree on, but also when refusing to reach an agreement carries a tangible price.For now, the Kremlin is demonstrating that it does not consider this price to be high enough.

Therefore, Russian «diplomacy» increasingly resembles the continuation of war by other means.Moscow can talk about the «root causes of the conflict», demand that its geopolitical interests be taken into account, insist on a special status for the occupied territories, question Ukrainian sovereignty, and simultaneously maintain military pressure. This approach allows the Kremlin to negotiate from a position of strength rather than seek a compromise.

For Ukraine, such a situation creates a deadly asymmetry. While the US administration may view the negotiation process as a diplomatic resource, for Ukraine, negotiations without a halt to Russian strikes are not an abstract diplomatic process. These are hours, days, and months during which peaceful Ukrainians continue to die.

On September 23, this contradiction manifested itself almost symbolically. While world diplomats were gathering in New York to discuss possibilities for ending the war, Russian drones were attacking Kyiv. The Ukrainian authorities reported dead and wounded, as well as strikes on railway and other infrastructure. This is the real price of a diplomatic pause if it is not backed by a mechanism to enforce compliance with agreements.

That is why today it is not enough for Ukraine to hear from Washington that «peace is possible». Ukraine needs an answer to a much more specific question: what happens if Moscow refuses again? However, the White House continues to avoid answering this question.

If a new round of negotiations begins after yet another Russian refusal of a ceasefire, rather than an increase in pressure, the Kremlin receives a very telling signal: refusal pays off. This is precisely what American diplomacy must not allow. At the same time, it would be a mistake to reduce everything solely to the personal relationship between Trump and Putin. This is a much deeper problem.

Donald Trump is clearly seeking to demonstrate that the United States is capable of ending the largest war in Europe since World War II. For him, this is not just about Ukraine. It is a matter of American global leadership, Washington’s ability to negotiate with major powers, and a chance to deliver results where previous administrations failed to do so.

But geopolitics has an unpleasant trait: it does not always align with the political calendar of the 47th American president. Putin is under no obligation to help Trump demonstrate a diplomatic success.

On the contrary. If the Russian leadership believes it can improve its position by continuing the war, it will use the negotiations to buy extra time, split the Western coalition, pressure Ukraine, and seek a more favorable formula for a future deal.

The Kremlin’s stance on the eve of recent diplomatic contacts is also telling. The Russian side stated that there were no prerequisites for transitioning to a full-fledged peace negotiation process, while simultaneously declaring its readiness to remain open to talks.

For the Kremlin, this is a highly convenient diplomatic construct: Russia formally does not reject peace, yet it avoids taking on any commitments that could bring an end to the war.

This presents Washington with a choice that will become increasingly acute. Either the United States continues to persuade Moscow with diplomatic arguments, or diplomacy begins to rely on a much tougher system of incentives and deterrence. Which is more logical.

And here it is crucial not to confuse «toughness» with the rejection of diplomacy. On the contrary, the most effective diplomacy is diplomacy backed by force.

Sanctions, restricting Russian energy revenues, military support for Ukraine, strengthening air defense, bolstering European security, coordination with allies, and a clear prospect of further increasing the cost of war are not alternatives to negotiations. They are what can make negotiations effective.

Ukraine understands this. That is why Ukraine does not reject diplomacy but insists that de-escalation must be mutual. Kyiv has declared Ukraine’s readiness to cease strikes on energy facilities, provided Russia takes reciprocal actions.

This is a position of principle. Because a unilateral ceasefire is not peace. It is a pause if the other party does not undertake similar commitments.

The significance of Lavrov’s words at the UN goes far beyond yet another diplomatic exchange of accusations, as they demonstrate the limit of current Russian readiness for negotiations. Moscow wants to discuss the future order without giving up the tool it uses to try to impose this order.

For US President Trump, this is a moment of truth. He will have to decide what exactly he defines as peace. If peace is merely an agreement to stop the shooting for a certain period, Moscow might attempt to use such a pause to regroup, rebuild its resources, and prepare for the next round of confrontation.

If peace means a sustainable political order that makes a repeat of the war impossible, then entirely different parameters are required: security guarantees for Ukraine, a mechanism to monitor compliance with the agreements, accountability for violations, the issue of the occupied territories, and a long-term European security architecture.

And here arises the main geopolitical paradox. Trump seeks a quick result. Putin is ready to wait. Ukraine, however, cannot wait. It is this asymmetry of time that could determine the subsequent course of the diplomatic process.

For Washington, negotiations are just one of the tools of global politics. For the Kremlin, they are an instrument in the struggle to reshape the European balance of power. For Ukraine, it is a matter of the physical survival of both the state and society.

Therefore, the American strategy must not be limited to searching for a formula that Moscow will agree to. It must create conditions under which Moscow will be forced to seriously weigh the consequences of refusal. Otherwise, the «peace game» could become endless.

Yet another negotiation. Yet another proposal. Yet another Russian response about «root causes». Yet another round of consultations. Yet another attack. Yet another diplomatic summit. And in between all of this – Ukrainian cities, air raid sirens, destroyed buildings, dead civilians.

That is why today the question is no longer whether Donald Trump wants to end the war. Obviously, he does. The question is much tougher: is the U.S. president ready to change the rules of the game if Putin refuses to play by the rules of peace?

For peace cannot be wrung from the Kremlin through persuasion alone. It can only be achieved when the Russian leadership sees that continuing the war ceases to be more advantageous than ending it. And this is no longer a matter of diplomatic rhetoric. It is a matter of strength, cost, time, and strategic will.

So far, Moscow is demonstrating that negotiations do not mean an end to the war for them. Now, Washington faces a choice that will determine not only the fate of the current diplomatic process but also the future security architecture of all of Europe.

If Trump wants to go down in history as the president who ended this war, he will have to do more than just persuade Putin to sit down at the negotiating table.

Trump will need to make the Russian dictator realize that walking away from the negotiation process is entirely possible, but escaping accountability for further escalation of the conflict is no longer an option. It is from this exact moment that diplomacy stops being a game of peace and becomes a real politics of peace.