The US president sees Ukraine as a failing asset, not an ally
Just two months ago, the idea of serious negotiations between Russia and the United States over Ukraine – let alone a broader normalization of relations – seemed like utopia. Yet today, what once appeared impossible is happening. It proves that, with realism and a genuine will to achieve results, much can be accomplished. However, two extremes must be avoided: one is the illusion that everything will be resolved quickly and painlessly, and the other is the cynical belief that any agreement is fundamentally unattainable.
It is the White House that is driving this political and diplomatic effort. Russia, as it has reiterated many times, is responding to goodwill with a readiness for meaningful dialogue. Meanwhile, Western Europe is playing the role of the perennial spoiler – grumbling and obstructing – but lacking the military and political weight to stop or reverse the process. As for Ukraine, it resists, knowing its survival depends on American support. Despite its reluctance, Kiev is being told behind the scenes by its European backers that following Washington’s lead is inevitable.
Trump the deal-maker, not the ideologue
The key to understanding Washington’s approach came in Donald Trump’s now-infamous conversation with Vladimir Zelensky. When asked whether America was “on Ukraine’s side,” Trump responded that the US was not on anyone’s side – it simply wanted to end the war and achieve peace. This was a revolutionary statement. Until now, no Western politician could answer such a question without reflexively declaring full support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia. But by positioning the US as a mediator rather than a partisan backer, Trump has completely shifted the tone of American engagement.
Trump’s view of mediation is clear: pressure both sides into agreeing to a ceasefire, and then leave them to negotiate their future coexistence – perhaps without further American involvement. In reality, the latter part of the process does not interest Trump much, if at all. His camp sees the war as an unnecessary drain on US resources, a burden America doesn’t need. Their priority is to extricate the US, not to secure ideological victories or long-term commitments.
This explains why Trump is applying much harsher pressure on Ukraine than on Russia. In his eyes, Ukraine is a troubled asset with bad management at the helm – one that is bleeding American money and needs restructuring. From the standpoint of a businessman, the “major shareholder” (Washington) is demanding damage control and cost-cutting from the “management” (Zelensky and his administration). Ukraine’s leaders are being forced to make concessions where possible, but their ability to maneuver is limited.
The pressure on Russia is of a different nature. Unlike Ukraine, Russia is not dependent on the US and remains a major power with its own interests. Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy defined great power rivalry as the defining feature of modern geopolitics, and this still holds true. Moreover, Trump has long feared nuclear war – something he has spoken about publicly for decades, even before he entered politics. He blames Joe Biden for bringing the world to the brink of nuclear escalation without a clear objective. This concern acts as a moderating force in Trump’s approach to Russia. While he may exert pressure, he will avoid steps that could provoke further escalation.
At the same time, Trump’s remark about being “on no one’s side” applies to Russia as well. He is uninterested in the historical or cultural complexities of the Ukraine conflict. However, credit must be given where it is due: Trump has shown a willingness to abandon the rigid dogmas that have shaped Western policy toward Russia for years. He has taken decisive steps toward understanding Moscow’s position in a way that previous US leaders refused to do.
Trump’s negotiating style is built on pressure and brinkmanship, but ultimately, he believes a deal requires concessions from both sides. This is a businessman’s approach: force the other party to the table, hold a tough line, but ultimately hammer out an agreement that serves mutual interests.
What distinguishes Trump from his predecessors is that he is not seeking global hegemony based on ideology. Unlike the liberal interventionists who preceded him, Trump has little interest in abstract ideas. He views American dominance in the world not as a matter of spreading democracy or human rights, but as the ability to secure concrete gains – especially economic ones. His approach, inherited from the business world, is pragmatic: regulatory constraints are obstacles to be bypassed rather than guiding principles. This flexibility, especially in international law and foreign policy, provides room to maneuver and opens paths that previously seemed blocked. In the context of Ukraine, it is an asset – dogmatic thinking has only led to stalemate.
However, Trump sees negotiations as a process of mutual compromise. If he believes Ukraine must make concessions, he also believes Russia must do the same. From his perspective, any deal must be reciprocal; otherwise, it is unfair. This presents both challenges and opportunities for Moscow.
Real diplomacy returns
Above all, the most important development is that real diplomacy has returned. Behind closed doors, intensive negotiations are unfolding – complex, high-stakes discussions with no predetermined outcomes. For years, diplomacy in the Western world had degenerated into a one-sided lecture: the US and its allies dictated terms, and the only question was how quickly the other side would comply. Now, that era is over. The art of real diplomacy – balancing power, recognizing mutual interests, and engaging in direct, substantive talks – is making a comeback.
For the first time in decades, Washington and Moscow are engaging as equals, navigating the complexities of power politics without the ideological baggage of the past. And that, more than anything, is what makes this moment so significant. For the first time in years, there is a real chance of finding a resolution – because finally, there are real negotiations.
