The first rule of thumb in international peacemaking is the “hurting stalemate” when the military efforts of both sides have stalled, and both hurt — their core national interests being far too damaged to continue the war. At that point, international mediation efforts tend to be most effective.
Unfortunately for President Trump, the war between Russia and Ukraine is nowhere near a hurting stalemate. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his supporters clearly feel they have the battlefield advantage and that, militarily at least, time is on their side. Every day that the war continues means a few more miles of Ukrainian territory in their hands.
Trump in recent months has been trying to change this calculus by making Russia “hurt” more by restarting military aid to Ukraine and threatening to impose tariffs on Russia. This is why Putin requested the summit: to play for time by giving Trump the minimal “photo op” (as the Ukrainian president dubbed it) that has convinced the U.S. president to hold off the sanctions threat, while also ending Russia’s diplomatic isolation.
Moreover, the fact that the Ukrainian government was excluded from the meeting suggested it is somehow less of a sovereign entity, which strengthened Russia’s argument that its territory should be carved up. This in turn signaled that the U.S. will seek to push Ukraine into a deal it does not want, if Putin can continue to appear to be the more reasonable party in Trump’s eyes.
Trump’s conversations with NATO leaders after the summit appear to have confirmed that Putin received exactly what he wanted: a comprehensive peace negotiation predicated upon the principle of Ukraine giving up land for peace, and no immediate ceasefire beforehand. Much is being made of Trump dropping his ceasefire demand, although it was never a major concession in the first place, and Putin may still offer it in the days ahead to help Trump from being completely embarrassed.
Either way, Putin’s goals of delay and seeming to appease Trump would be served, while allowing more time for Russian battlefield victories, since ceasefires can easily be broken, and peace talks can drag on for years.
But does this mean that Putin played Trump in Friday’s summit? For Round One, it is hard to argue otherwise, but Round Two starts Monday when the president meets Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington. Zelensky has long rejected any notion of a land-for-peace deal, and a repeat of February’s disastrous bickering of the two presidents before the cameras of the world would further sink Trump’s hopes.
Trump has more reason for optimism if he plays the long game. Peace processes tend to be far stickier than warring parties expect, though they almost always use the process as another front in the war: recognition for their cause, bombastic public statements to shame the other side, long talks that go nowhere, and resumption of hostilities while negotiations continue or stall.
Yet once parties do start talking, the process itself begins to take on a life they cannot fully control. Allies and adversaries alike ratchet up pressure over time to get a deal. Trading partners hinge more business on the process, and stock markets dip when talks stall. And most importantly, domestic pressure starts to build around the peace process, as war-weary populations grow upset with every failure in the talks, even in tightly controlled dictatorships.
But peace processes are sticky for mediators too, and Trump is going to have to make some difficult commitments to get a comprehensive deal. The only way that Ukraine is ever likely to agree to ceding part of its territory to Russia is an ironclad guarantee of its future security from the U.S. and its European allies. That means NATO membership, which no one but the Ukrainians want. Thus some kind of heavy security arrangements that offer Ukraine everything but NATO membership in name will have to be on the table, alongside renewed economic sanctions on the Russians if they balk.
The Ukrainians are rightly going to assume that agreeing to peace and giving part of their territory to Russia will be followed by a new war in subsequent years as Moscow tries to grab even more territory. Kiev is going to need to be convinced that the West will fight alongside it if that happens, or at least will provide sufficient equipment and funds to ensure that the Ukrainian military can hold out in a future war.
Trump is not ready for such commitments, but he may not have much of a choice if he is going to see this through. Putin now has the upper hand, but if Trump can play the long game and keep the pressure on Moscow, there is still a chance that we will look back on Friday as the start of a comprehensive peace.
Darren Kew is dean or the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies at the University of San Diego.
