Speaking in Paris on April 18 after meeting with European and Ukrainian leaders, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the Trump administration would abandon its role as a mediator in peace talks unless progress is made soon. Following Russia’s brutal and cynical strikes on Kryvyi Rih and Sumy — and Trump’s latest comments, in which he called the attacks a “mistake” while once again blaming Ukraine for the war — the question has resurfaced: what is the point of Washington’s political efforts, given that they have achieved nothing as a mediator? According to political analyst Anton Barbashin, Trump will eventually have to decide who to blame for the breakdown: either Russia, or Ukraine and the EU. At the moment, cutting a deal with Putin looks like the more likely path.
Three months have passed since Donald Trump returned to the White House, and there hase been no movement toward peace in Ukraine. Talks between Washington and Moscow have focused almost entirely on patching up bilateral relations, while attempts to secure even a limited ceasefire — whether in the Black Sea or around energy infrastructure — have fallen flat.
True, Trump hasn’t “handed Ukraine over to Putin,” as many feared after the open rift between Zelensky and the new U.S. president. was broadcast to the world from the Oval Office back on Feb. 28. The White House even continues to speak of “progress” in its dialogue with Moscow — despite the fact that the death toll among civilians in major Ukrainian cities keeps climbing. Russia, for its part, is cautiously signaling that no real breakthrough on Ukraine should be expected and is demanding sweeping concessions from Kyiv.
So far, no one has put forward even the basic sketch of a peace plan that could conceivably satisfy the Kremlin without amounting to total capitulation for Ukraine. As things stand, the most likely outcome is a continued war. But even if the talks collapse, that won’t necessarily derail the “new reset” in U.S.–Russia relations.
The failure of peace talks on Ukraine doesn’t necessarily mean the collapse of the “new reset” in U.S.–Russia relations
There are at least three reasons why tensions between Washington and Moscow are likely to ease, even if Kyiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, Odesa, and countless other Ukrainian cities remain under Russian fire. First, for Trump, European politics and Ukraine’s future are not priorities. He has consistently signaled to both the EU and Ukraine that while the U.S. would prefer an end to the war, it has no intention of playing an active role in reaching a peace settlement. Trump’s America is instead shifting responsibility for any future agreement, and its enforcement, onto the Europeans.
For Trump, the breakdown of talks wouldn’t be a personal defeat — he can always, as he’s doing now, blame Biden, Zelensky, or Putin for being unwilling or unable to make peace. That would allow him to scale back his involvement with the Ukraine issue and pivot to other areas of American politics. Given his plans to annex Greenland, deport a million migrants, wage trade wars with much of the world, and confront China, the Ukraine file can easily take a back seat in his agenda.
Second, Trump doesn’t see Russia as a serious threat in and of itself. Amid an unprecedented trade war with China, the American president is keen to avoid pushing Moscow closer to Beijing. To keep Russia at arm’s length from China, Trump needs to maintain a dialogue with the Kremlin — which, at the very least, means not ramping up sanctions pressure on Putin.
Third, Moscow is making it clear to Washington that the two countries’ bilateral agenda can go well beyond the war in Ukraine. While the potential for economic cooperation may be limited, Russia could prove useful when it comes to regulating crises in Syria, Israel, and Iran. For Trump, that makes it all the more important not to escalate tensions with Putin, and even minimal normalization of relations could be framed as a major achievement for both the White House and the Kremlin.
On April 11, U.S. President’s special envoy Steve Witkoff visited Moscow
That’s precisely why both sides are likely to think twice before escalating the situation. There are several realistic scenarios for how U.S.–Russia relations could develop — taking into account the potential fallout from the failure of Ukraine peace talks.
A partnership without commitment
Given the current trajectory, the most likely scenario involves a continued push for a “reset” without serious commitments from either side. To keep Russia engaged and to encourage Moscow’s cooperation beyond the Ukraine issue, it would be enough for the U.S. to signal a drawdown of military and financial aid to Kyiv, along with steps to reduce its military presence in Europe.
Putin may interpret these moves as a promised U.S. exit from the conflict, effectively recasting Washington from the role of adversary to that of a difficult but potentially useful partner — at least on a limited subset of issues. A full lifting of sanctions wouldn’t be necessary, as Moscow understands that such a step would be politically difficult for Trump. But pulling support from Ukraine would be reason enough for the Kremlin to go on calling Trump a “genius.”
In this scenario, the burden of supporting Ukraine would fall squarely on the EU. Anticipating this turn of events, Brussels is already working to strengthen its own defense capabilities and ramp up aid to Kyiv. To be frank, the European Union does indeed have the financial resources to keep supporting Ukraine in a mode of “active defense.”
Still, without access to the U.S. defense industry, military aid to Kyiv will become increasingly difficult to sustain. In the most favorable scenario for Moscow, Trump could, following the example of Israel, ban the transfer of U.S.-made defense products to Ukraine — even if the EU is willing to foot the bill.
Whether Trump allows the EU to purchase American weapons for Ukraine will depend not only on his relationship with Zelensky, but also on the broader trajectory of U.S.–EU relations. With a trade war already underway and ambitions involving Greenland on the table, it's hard to predict what that transatlantic dynamic will look like six months from now.
A moderate chill
The most optimistic scenario for Ukraine is that Trump, in an effort to ease tensions with Western allies and his own political establishment, will place the blame for the failed talks squarely on Putin, then join Europe in punishing Russia for its refusal to end the largest war in Europe in 80 years.
That said, no one should expect a complete flip in Trump’s worldview. Trade conflict and confrontation with China will remain his top priorities in the coming years. At best, Kyiv can hope for continued military support at current levels, on the condition that the EU shoulders most of the financial burden. Under this scenario, Trump might agree to impose additional sanctions on Russia and largely suspend bilateral dialogue. Still, even amid renewed tensions, some effort to maintain minimal contact with Moscow is likely to continue.
New sanctions or other restrictions introduced by Trump won’t alter decision-making in the Kremlin, but they could complicate Russia’s efforts to rebuild its military capacity and wage a long-term war.
Ironically, even under the warmest relations between Washington and Moscow, the biggest threat to Russia may be the escalating U.S.–China trade war, which is driving down oil prices. In effect, Trump could remain a “friend” to Putin while doing more harm to the Russian economy than any sanctions regime ever did.
Trump could, in effect, remain a “friend” to Putin while causing more harm to the Russian economy than any sanctions regime
Friendship out of spite
A less likely scenario would see the U.S. fully withdraw support for Ukraine, relations between Washington and Brussels deteriorate further, and Trump become willing to significantly expand cooperation with Russia. It’s worth noting right away that the potential for such cooperation remains limited, and no dramatic breakthrough should be expected. Moscow won’t abandon its partnership with China, but it could play an active role in a new deal on Iran, show flexibility on Syria, and offer restrained support for Israel.
To generate more enthusiasm in the Kremlin, Trump would have to lift at least some sanctions — perhaps those involving the aviation sector and restrictions against Russian exports. In return, Moscow might propose major joint projects in the Arctic and, more broadly, a renewed version of a “non-aggression and mutual understanding pact” that clearly delineates spheres of influence. Under such a deal, Russia could commit to limited neutrality in the Asia-Pacific in exchange for U.S. noninterference in European affairs.
The Kremlin certainly harbors ambitions for a deal of this scale. For Putin, it would amount to near-total recognition of parity between the two powers and mark an important step toward a multipolar world.
Which scenario is most likely?
The first scenario — reduced tension with limited cooperation — still seems the most realistic. But it's important not to overlook the fact that Trump’s approach over the past three months has been highly chaotic, unpredictable, and often at odds with traditional U.S. interests. His aggressive economic moves are pushing the global economy toward a downturn that will inevitably affect the United States as well. Midterm elections are set to take place in November 2026, and the Democrats are likely to regain a majority in Congress — something that would further complicate Trump’s presidency and divert his attention away from foreign policy.
So far, the “reset” with Russia hasn’t taken any clear shape. The two sides are still just discussing how to reopen embassies. And it is entirely possible that if any real progress is actually made, Trump will face pushback from domestic opponents and U.S. allies alike.
Even for a newly re-elected president, trying to pick fights with the whole world — except Russia — won’t be easy. And despite his boundless energy, Trump is unlikely to pull off a foreign policy revolution overnight. As we’ve seen before, he rarely stays focused on any one issue for long. Under the circumstances, the idea that he could deliver a deep and lasting partnership with Putin seems far-fetched.
What does seem more plausible is a partial pullback from Europe and a scaling down of support for Kyiv. That, in turn, brings us back to the question of Europe’s role in Ukraine’s future. Whatever happens in the negotiations between the U.S.–Russia, one thing is clear: Kyiv won’t accept surrender, and the European Union isn’t about to walk away from supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself.