Kyiv is caught between Western uncertainty and Moscow’s resolve, says the writer.
Image: Sputnik / Stanislav Krasilnikov
By Sergey Poletaev
Hints about peace talks on Ukraine began last summer, and now preparations appear almost official. Many pin their hopes on Donald Trump, but there is little reason to believe the incoming American president can guarantee success.
The proposed sequence — first a ceasefire, then peace talks — echoes countless regional conflicts of the 20th century, where external actors pressured warring parties into ceasefires. These often led to latent, smouldering wars with periodic escalations, occasionally involving peacekeepers.
In Ukraine, this approach would only work if the cost of the conflict to Moscow outweighed the cost of a ceasefire. So far, this is not the case. Negotiations will likely occur against the backdrop of continued or even escalating hostilities.
However, the main problem remains the West’s inability to commit. This makes a full-fledged peace treaty between Russia, the US, and Western Europe unlikely in the coming years. Still, a more or less lasting peace in Ukraine is possible — without Western guarantees.
The Ukrainian conflict has been brewing for decades and entered its military phase because of the West’s inability to make concrete promises —either to Kyiv or to Moscow.
In the spring of 2022, Kyiv was eager to negotiate in Istanbul to stop the invasion, hoping the West would guarantee its security. Meanwhile, Putin pursued a grand pact with the West to divide spheres of influence. Neither side received what they wanted. The West, unwilling to offer substantive solutions, opted to arm Ukraine and use it as a proxy against Russia.
Initially, this strategy seemed to work for NATO. Ukraine’s military successes gave hope that a few more tanks, planes, and sanctions would topple Russia’s economy and military, along with President Vladimir Putin’s government. But by late 2022, the conflict had evolved into a war of attrition, where Ukraine, due to its smaller size and resources, is being exhausted far faster than Russia.
Now, as Ukraine faces mounting challenges at the front and increasing instability at home, the situation is beginning to resemble the spring of 2022. Once again, Kyiv is looking to the West for guarantees. Zelensky himself has been pleading for commitments from Macron, NATO, and even Trump. But as in Istanbul, the West cannot offer meaningful ones. Unlike in 2022, it offers no alternatives either.
Back then, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s call to “just fight” and Russia’s retreat from Kyiv inspired Ukraine and the West. Today, the rhetoric is less convincing. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s proposal to send 18-year-olds to the front lines evokes shame, not hope, even among Ukraine’s most militant patriots.
Many are now wondering if Trump’s presidency can bring peace to Ukraine. While his rhetoric has softened, moving closer to Biden’s, his promises remain vague. The boast of achieving peace in “24 hours” has been replaced with “if I can.” He speaks of a strong Ukraine and even NATO, betraying little intention of upending the West’s current policies.
While Trump’s aversion to war may be genuine, it is unlikely to yield tangible results. Peace cannot be commanded into existence — it requires addressing the root causes of the conflict. Trump offers no solutions here and likely cannot.
Where Trump may differ from Biden is in his willingness to shift the burden of the conflict onto Western Europe, focusing instead on China. While this may benefit Russia strategically, it does not bring the conflict any closer to resolution, nor address the division of spheres of influence. Neither the globalist West nor Trump appears willing to negotiate seriously with Moscow.
With no expectations from the West or Trump, Moscow is doubling down on its military strategy. By maintaining a steady pace of operations, Russia hopes to wear down Ukraine to the point of collapse. Ukraine’s desperate search for peace guarantees, met only with calls for continued war, may push its elites to the realisation that direct talks with Moscow are the only path to survival.
Militarily, Russia’s approach is clear. While its forces cannot yet achieve strategic breakthroughs, they have learned to push through defences systematically. Critics and analysts alike acknowledge that since spring 2023, Russian advances have been slow but relentless, like a steamroller.
Politically, the Kremlin seeks to create conditions where Kyiv will accept peace on Russian terms: renouncing its role as a military and political threat to Moscow. For this, the Kremlin is relying on the psychological impact of unfulfilled Western promises and the ongoing devastation of Ukraine’s economy and society.
While Russia currently holds the upper hand, other scenarios remain possible:
A Ceasefire Without Commitment:
Russia might agree to a ceasefire only if it begins running out of resources—whether economically, militarily, or politically. With the West unable to guarantee anything to either side, such a truce would likely postpone the conflict for months or years.
A Prolonged Low-Intensity Conflict:
If Ukraine strengthens its defences and rear, Russia may shift to a strategy of conserving resources, reducing its offensive operations. This scenario risks turning Ukraine into a “Palestinianized” state—a fragmented, militarised hotbed of instability.
Escalation:
If Trump or NATO opt for direct military intervention, Russia could escalate, possibly even with nuclear weapons. While the West believes Putin would back down, the Kremlin’s likely response would be retaliation, escalating the crisis rapidly.
Moscow appears confident in its ability to sustain the conflict for at least another year, if not longer. It is betting on Ukraine’s eventual collapse under the weight of military and economic pressure. The Kremlin sees no need to engage seriously with the globalist West or Trump. Instead, it aims to impose peace on its terms, forcing Ukraine to relinquish its anti-Russian stance and securing its own long-term security.
While alternatives exist, they all depend on factors outside Russia’s control. For now, Moscow is content to keep pressing forward, confident that time is on its side.
* This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team.
* Sergey Poletaev is an information analyst and publicist, co-founder and editor of the Vatfor project.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.