Another Round of Peace Talks in Ukraine Fails?

New attempts to advance a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine, linked to major international events in Alaska and Washington, appear to have failed, as the warring parties have reverted to their initial negotiating positions and are bracing for the next phase of hostilities

Sergiu ISAENCO, RTA: Yesterday, Donald Trump reemerged in public following a mysterious absence that had fueled widespread speculation about his health, and made a series of statements. After the announcement of his evening address, many expected it to focus on Ukraine, given the deadline he himself had set for progress on a peace settlement. In fact, he announced the relocation of the US Space Command from one state to another, but also responded to several questions regarding Ukraine. Trump’s remarks were even less concrete than usual. Once again expressing his disappointment with Vladimir Putin, he referred to some “interesting things” the Russian president had allegedly shared with him, spoke of possible consequences if a Putin-Zelensky meeting fail to take place, and issued vague, non-specific threats of certain measures in the absence of progress in the peace process. From an observer’s standpoint, it seems that the momentum the peace track gained at the Alaska summit has now completely dissipated. And yet the initial impulse was quite strong, triggering a wave of diplomatic efforts, proposals, initiatives, and a more or less substantive exchange of views, albeit mostly indirect. It was believed that once a high-level presidential meeting was finally arranged, this signaled that the main parameters of a deal had essentially been outlined – something both leaders, in fact, hinted at afterward. Against this backdrop, some experts were convinced that peace by the end of the year was a fully realistic prospect. To support their forecast, they pointed to certain signals: for instance, Kyiv’s decision to reopen the borders for young men aged 18 to 22, a category previously barred from leaving. The logic seemed straightforward: if Ukraine deliberately accepts an inevitable reduction in its potential pool of recruits, it must be confident that the war’s end is approaching. After Alaska, a Ukrainian-European delegation visited Washington, where it was expected to receive a list of conditions for a peace treaty agreed upon by the United States and Russia. What followed were numerous discussions, both official and unofficial, suggesting that a three-way summit between Trump, Putin, and Zelensky could take place within just a few weeks, with the possibility of a direct meeting between the leaders of the warring countries even before that. There were also other “peace” signals: Russia displayed a certain degree of flexibility in its position, hinting at the possibility of compromises, and even declared its readiness to raise the level of its delegation’s representation for talks in Istanbul. Kyiv, for its part, made ambiguous comments regarding the territories, while Zelensky publicly expressed his willingness to meet with Putin, even despite the existing decree that formally prohibits him from doing so. However, the sides have now rolled back to their original positions. A look at recent statements from Russia’s Foreign Ministry shows demands being put forward in the usual maximalist tone. Moscow categorically rejects any guarantees for Ukraine that would involve a Western military presence without Russia’s participation. Kyiv, in turn, has made it clear that under no circumstances will it agree to simply give up territories not yet occupied, thereby immediately rejecting Russia’s key demand. Moreover, Ukraine wants to strengthen the capabilities of its Armed Forces through external support and considers the deployment of Western troops in the post-war period to be essential. Meanwhile, heavy fighting continues across multiple sectors of the front. At the same time, mutual strikes against energy infrastructure are intensifying. Zelensky has promised new operations targeting deep inside Russia. Thus, the situation is trending more toward escalation than toward peace. Was the failure of yet another round of peace efforts on Ukraine predetermined? Most likely. And much of this has to do with the personality of the current chief peacemaker in this conflict – Donald Trump. It is already clear that the approaches he has chosen, his push to impose peace through a crude mix of carrot-and-stick tactics that often turn out to be little more than illusions, are not proving particularly effective. This has only led both sides to adjust their public messaging to appeal to the US president, staging a “theater for one spectator” with simulated attempts and professed willingness to negotiate. At times Moscow handles this performance better, at other times Kyiv does. Hence Trump’s constant emotional swings: one moment he is dissatisfied with Zelensky, the next with Putin, and sometimes with both simultaneously. On one day the White House host may speak of the need to stop the war immediately, assuring that it will happen soon; on the next, he suggests the end is not near and perhaps Russia and Ukraine should be allowed to “fight it out” a little longer. But the key point is that Trump avoids to take truly decisive enforcement measures. The example of secondary sanctions is telling. One might also recall his approach back in May, when Russia and the United States appeared to have reached broad agreement on the main conditions for peace, only for the deal to be derailed by Ukraine and the EU, without either facing consequences. As a result, Moscow and Kyiv have little incentive to heed Trump, even when he peppers his statements with threats. This produces a paradox. The US president, who seems to have a ready answer for any question, always framed in terms of a “magical two weeks”, has, on the one hand, injected momentum into a peace process that had been stalled since the spring of 2022. Yet at the same time, he condemns it to failure through his own contentious tactical methods. But perhaps the collapse of Trump’s mediation efforts was inevitable from the outset. The core causes of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict have not been addressed, and in fact have only grown sharper. The losses already incurred weigh heavily on both sides, pushing them toward maximalist objectives. At the same time, neither side views its current position as dire enough to warrant major concessions. On the contrary, each has grounds to believe that the opponent may be headed for a relatively imminent collapse. Kyiv anticipates the exhaustion of Russia’s available military resources and, more importantly, a breaking point in the Russian economy, excited by reports of mounting troubles in its financial sector and a record budget deficit already far surpassing projected levels. Moscow, for its part, believes that the Ukrainian front is cracking and could collapse at any moment, with catastrophic consequences for Kyiv. In that scenario, Russia expects that the eventual outcome of the war could deliver a far more substantial “crane in the sky” rather than settling for a relatively meager “bird in the hand”. Under such conditions, peace can be achieved only at the cost of major concessions, either from Russia or from Ukraine. Yet neither side is willing to make them, while Donald Trump, as we see, is heavily constrained in his maneuvering: reluctant to pressure Kyiv, but also wary of the global repercussions of imposing secondary sanctions on Moscow. With no other mediators on the horizon, the chances of a swift end to the war at this point must be regarded as decidedly low.