President Donald Trump has learned that achieving peace between Ukraine and Russia is no quick task. Recently, Vice President J.D. Vance admitted that the conflict is likely to continue for a long time. The administration has been focusing its criticism on Russia, particularly on President Vladimir Putin.
Trump has expressed doubts about Putin’s intentions, suggesting that the Russian leader may not want to end the war. Vance noted that both Russia and Ukraine are making demands that seem excessive, creating a significant divide between the two sides. This gap is expected, as both countries have been in conflict for over three years, with each side hardening its stance and expanding its goals.
In the early days of the war, there was a chance for negotiation. If Ukraine had agreed to abandon its NATO ambitions, it might have satisfied Putin. However, after failing to topple the Ukrainian government, Russia’s demands grew, including territorial claims. Ukraine, on the other hand, initially focused on survival but became emboldened by battlefield successes, leading to a demand for the complete withdrawal of Russian forces, including from Crimea and Donbass.
The history of war shows that as fighting continues, it becomes harder for both sides to compromise. In World War I, for example, even as losses mounted, the German leadership continued to seek more territory until a change in command led to an eventual peace agreement.
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine reflects this pattern. If Ukraine’s President Zelensky is forced to concede more land for peace, many might question why he delayed negotiations earlier. Similarly, Putin faces pressure; losing ground would be seen as a major failure for him.
Determining what constitutes "too much" in terms of demands is complex. While Russia’s goals may seem excessive, they are rooted in its perception of security. Putin might be willing to negotiate if he can achieve his key goals at a lower cost, but it ultimately falls to him and the Russian people to decide.
U.S. President Joe Biden has not shown a willingness to engage militarily, and Trump appears to be in a similar position. Despite the gravity of the situation, there is a reluctance among U.S. leaders to escalate tensions with Russia. The U.S. involvement in Ukraine is not viewed as a vital national interest, and many allies are hesitant to commit troops.
One alternative would be to increase sanctions against Russia. Trump has suggested this approach, but such measures may not compel Russia to alter its stance on security issues. Additionally, imposing sanctions could strain relationships with other nations, particularly China and India, which could resist U.S. pressure.
The U.S. should encourage peace talks but not force a resolution at a high cost. The focus should be on American interests, which may mean stepping back from direct involvement in the conflict. This would allow Ukraine and its European allies to decide how to proceed without the burden of U.S. expectations.
Moving forward, the U.S. should aim to improve its relationship with Russia. This could involve urging Moscow to limit its ties with North Korea and offering alternatives to Russian dependence on China. While a complete shift in international dynamics is unrealistic, a gradual improvement in relations could help reduce tensions.
Ultimately, it is up to Russia to define its demands in the conflict. The U.S. can support a peaceful resolution but should not escalate its involvement. The best path forward may be for the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict, allowing Ukraine and Europe to determine their own course of action.