Trump's peace play: Why Russia won't bite on negotiations

More than three weeks have passed since the phone conversation between Russian and U.S. leaders Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. The Kremlin allegedly wanted to end the war, but there's no indication of that on the front. The shelling of Ukraine has not decreased. Meanwhile, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia will not settle for the areas it currently occupies.

The echoes of the argument between President Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House continue. Recently, the American administration announced a suspension of military aid to Ukraine.

Tomasz Molga: How do you assess the recent tensions between Donald Trump's administration and the President of Ukraine in the context of Russian interests? Can the Kremlin exploit this crisis to weaken Western support for Ukraine?

Professor Włodzimierz Marciniak, a political scientist, Russia expert, and former Polish ambassador to Moscow (2016-2020), analyzed the political implications of the controversial event at the White House beyond its ceremonial aspects. He suggested that President Trump aimed to pressure President Zelensky into accepting a ceasefire without providing complete details. In response to the assertion that he had no leverage and must comply, Zelensky defiantly countered, acknowledging potential defeat but warning that his opponent would not achieve victory either.

In this manner, he bought time for common sense to return to politics. Trump wants to win, and European countries also want a share in it. I don't know if they will be able to overcome contradictions and form a coalition of the willing. Ukraine is not the only one in a difficult situation. The Russian offensive collapsed in December, and since then, the Russians have been unable to change this situation. Meanwhile, Keith Kellogg's plan (the U.S. envoy for Ukraine and Russia) envisages enforcing a truce on both sides. I'm curious to see how it will unfold.

From the perspective of Polish diplomacy and experiences with Moscow, should Poland fear the current U.S. policy course toward Ukraine? What actions could Warsaw take to protect its interests if U.S. support for Kyiv weakens?

Based on Trump's statements, he seems willing to concede to Russia what it already possesses—the occupied territories of Ukraine—recognize Russia as a political and economic partner, and refrain from admitting Ukraine to NATO, something no U.S. administration has wanted. There's nothing directly threatening to Poland's interests in this, but it could lead to dividing Europe into different political blocs. In this situation, Warsaw should strive to strengthen U.S. support for Poland. Currently, the government's policy under the slogan: "first destroy PiS, then bury Putin in the ground" could have disastrous effects.

What is the current state of peace negotiations concerning the war in Ukraine?

I think they haven't even started yet. We are observing preliminary consultations; parties are setting conditions upon which they would begin talks. Of course, this was happening earlier in a confidential manner when various public declarations were made, often contradictory. This is how they probe the other party's stance.

Trump made several comments that caused moral outrage. Putin, in his statements, if I may say so, was a bit ingratiating, for example, noting that if Trump were president, the war would not have happened. He also stated explicitly that he would willingly engage in talks but doesn't know if President Trump would be able to reach an agreement as quickly as he believes. It's all a game.

What would have to happen to persuade Russia to start negotiations?

I'm not a war hawk, but I imagine mass deliveries of arms to Ukraine and a change in the situation on the front are factors. I don't see any other possibilities at all. The Russians are evidently convinced that everything is going well at the front. They're advancing a few miles forward. As long as this is the case, I doubt they would agree to a ceasefire.

The scale of Ukraine's resistance has been and is limited by at least two factors. First: the evident crisis with troop mobilization. The current authorities are not able to overcome this crisis, and this could be the main grievance against Volodymyr Zelensky.

Second: the current situation on the front is the result of at least a half-year pause in American arms supplies, which took place in 2024. The Biden administration limited supplies, pressing in at least two or three cases on Ukraine not to undertake offensive actions against Russia.

Do you remember Trump's first words after the phone conversation with Putin? He explained that "Putin wants peace" and "would like to end it." Several days have passed, and the Russians still bombard targets in Ukraine, launching missiles and a record number of drones...

The scale of attacks on Ukrainian cities has increased after the talks in Riyadh. It seems quite clear that the Russians want to increase the pressure on Ukraine. It's evident that they do not currently accept—at least for now—something like a ceasefire and starting negotiations.

We don't know exactly which words were exchanged during the presidents' talks. In the fall of 2021 and early 2022, when Macron and the then CIA director spoke with Putin, he laughed at them, stating bluntly that he wanted war. Compared to that message, Trump might have noted something different, namely that they want to end the war.

However, I am a pessimist, and it seems to me that Trump's peace initiative will not succeed. Indeed, the sides will exchange positions, and there will be a tussle. From the Russian point of view, it is impossible to negotiate with Trump, that is, to obtain conditions that Lavrov called "satisfactory results".

And what then?

Right after Trump's election, I read a statement from an anonymous official of Russia's president that talks would come first, and then escalation. We don't know what will happen or how Trump's policy will change if he realizes that Putin is just deceiving him.

I'm not in Trump's head, and I don't know what he thinks. However, all signs in the sky and on earth indicate that he's being deceived. He'll figure it out himself. I even suspect it's already clear to him. We'll see what happens next.

How much does Russia care about the issue of holding new elections in Ukraine?

Generally, Russia does not have that much influence. Despite various accusations and grievances against President Volodymyr Zelensky for extending his term and the lack of effective mobilization, it's somewhat hard to imagine elections when the country is engaged in military actions.

The U.S. once pushed for this in South Vietnam, and the result was not good. At this moment in Ukraine, elections would be very risky for everyone. It seems to me that the Russians could be satisfied with any Ukrainian president, as long as it's not Zelensky.

Would they field their own pro-Russian candidate?

I doubt it. They might hope for someone similar to Bidzina Ivanishvili to become president (leader of the Georgian Dream party). That means replicating the Georgian scenario and having a winning option that would advocate not fighting Russia now, but rather seeking an understanding. That would be the optimum the Russians could hope for.

Putin picked up on Trump's false narrative that Zelensky has only 4% support. In a lengthy interview published on official Kremlin sites, he calls the Ukrainian politician a "toxic figure," "responsible for huge losses in Ukrainian society."

Putin likes to appear in such a role, sharing his own wisdom about other countries' problems. Even in this material, you can see that this activity gives him great pleasure. I see a personal factor in this. He hates Zelensky.

Why?

This happened in December 2019 during the Normandy Four summit concerning the settlement of the conflict in Donbas. Putin, I suppose, was convinced that he had struck a deal with Zelensky, reaching an informal agreement on the implementation of the Minsk agreements points. With this conviction, he went to Paris and, speaking publicly to journalists, expressed himself in a way that suggested the deal was essentially done. Suddenly, Zelensky—much to everyone's surprise—declared that nothing would come of it, no agreement.

Both politicians personally participated in the negotiations. Despite this, the summit brought victory to neither side. Will Putin not forgive such an insult?

It was a public humiliation. It is possible that Putin's associates misled him about Ukraine's concessions regarding the Minsk agreements (controversial points included granting special status to parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions occupied by separatists, and allowing the creation of separatist militias there). I suppose, it's my speculation, that from then on, Putin began to view Zelensky as a traitor. Remember that the situation needs to be filtered through the mind of a KGB officer. Putin calculated: "he's already mine." However, Zelensky did not fulfill the arrangements, which in service terms made him a traitor. Such a thing is remembered for life. It seems to me that this specific situation is an important reason for this war.

During the Riyadh meeting, the U.S. was represented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff. On the Russian side, close collaborators of Putin appeared: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Presidential Advisor Yuri Ushakov. Judging by photos, one Russian was missing at the table. Does that matter?

Indeed, because it concerns Kirill Dmitriev, who was present in the background. He is an important figure, a deputy minister to the president. He was born in Kyiv and went to the United States, where he studied and worked in American financial institutions, then returned to Russia. It is said that he manages the ruling family’s funds.

In the background, Dmitriev showed participants a table with calculations suggesting that American companies lost 300 billion dollars due to sanctions against Russia and lack of access to the Russian market. What are they playing at?

Very characteristic. Two Russians are talking, while the third offers a bribe. This sounds like: we'll give you 300 billion dollars under the table for something. The Russian approach to these talks is typically mafia-like. And it confirms my thesis that we are only dealing with the preparation of starting positions for negotiations, which we don't know will even begin.

In your opinion, could Russia run out of tanks and soldiers ready to continue the assaults? Would a pause in the war be forced by a lack of resources?

These are significant facts, but I cannot build a forecast of when they will run out of tanks and people. Part of the equipment Russia is restoring and modernizing, and with the scale of actions on the front, this could probably last long enough. Russian soldiers are fighting for money, signing up for a contract.

The costs of the war are covered by export revenues, but only partially, and to a significant degree simply through money emission. Rubles without cover. Hence a massive inflation, probably not to be overcome for years. However, we need to ask economists what their forecasts are when this will lead to any serious disruptions in Russia and how long this policy can be maintained.

I only know that Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and Elvira Nabiullina, the head of the central bank, are high-class professionals and are performing miracles of balancing to maintain some financial-economic equilibrium in the country.

Gazprom has suffered enormous losses, and due to sanctions, Russia is already "barely breathing" - is this the true picture so often described by the media?

Gazprom is not ruined by sanctions but by Putin's political moves, as a result of which pipeline gas exports to Europe were interrupted. Meanwhile, Russia has dramatically increased liquefied gas exports and is trying to make up for it. Sanctions are working, making it difficult for them to finance the war.

I noticed that in Russia, there are first reports of large arrears in wage payments. This hasn't happened in a long time, and solving social issues was one of the reasons for Putin's popularity.

Problems are coming back, but factors such as Russians living poorly work incredibly slowly. It's hard to say whether this will cause any change in the internal political situation. It seems to me that if Putin told Trump he wants peace, it's because, to some degree, he is aware of economic problems.

Could ending the war trigger a crisis for Russia?

The entire financial pyramid that the budget and the central bank are building could collapse. Thus, it is an important aspect in the decision-making of Putin and his circle. They are calculating. Whether to continue this war as it has been, pretty barren, causing enormous casualties, suffering, losses, and so on, but having the domestic situation under control? Or end it, risking triggering social processes difficult to control?