Additional Coverage:
US Shifts Ukraine Support Amidst Stalled Peace Talks
WASHINGTON D.C. – Nearly a year after a contentious Oval Office meeting where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was reportedly admonished by then-President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, the landscape of U.S. support for Ukraine has significantly altered. That initial encounter, marked by Trump’s ultimatum, “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out,” set a new tone for U.S.-Ukraine relations, shifting American backing from a perceived necessity to a conditional offering.
Since that confrontational start, a year of high-stakes negotiations, spearheaded by the Trump administration, has seen a complex evolution. While Zelenskyy and Trump have since met and seemingly repaired their relationship, the former president has publicly expressed wavering support for Ukraine. He has consistently urged both Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin to make concessions to end the brutal four-year war that began on Tuesday.
However, a breakthrough remains elusive. Observers note that neither side has been willing to make sufficient concessions, with the Trump administration largely placing the burden on Kyiv, rather than Moscow, to make the necessary sacrifices for a peace deal. Even after an Alaska summit between the American and Russian presidents, a resolution remains frustratingly out of reach.
“I think that is exactly Putin’s strategy – to hope that both Ukraine and the West will tire of the war and that he can get a ceasefire along the lines he desires,” stated Arne Westad, a professor of international and global history at Yale University. Westad believes the Kremlin has been playing a waiting game, though he adds that risks for Putin are now higher due to “astonishingly high” battlefield losses and a suffering economy. Despite this, he doesn’t anticipate immediate “real negotiations” from Russia, suggesting their timeframe is “narrowing.”
Europe Steps Up as US Steps Back
The shift in U.S. policy has compelled Europe to shoulder a greater share of the responsibility. The European Union has emerged as Ukraine’s primary economic and military backer, with Germany leading individual contributions of arms. The U.S. has transitioned from directly underwriting weapons to selling them to Kyiv and its partners through NATO’s Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative.
A “Coalition of the Willing,” predominantly European nations, is now leading the development of a multinational peacekeeping force for post-war Ukraine. While the Trump administration remains hesitant to commit American “boots on the ground,” U.S. logistical, intelligence, surveillance, and air support are expected to be crucial for any foreign force deployed as part of Western security guarantees. European leaders have also actively championed Ukrainian interests in the arduous peace talks, even accompanying Zelenskyy to White House meetings to prevent potential undue pressure from the Trump administration.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte acknowledged Europe’s increased commitment, stating that Europeans are “stepping up.” Michael Kennedy, a professor of international affairs at Brown University, expressed surprise at Europe’s resolve. “I am frankly surprised that they have met the challenge Trump brings to this struggle by declaring that they will stand by Ukraine even if Trump will not,” Kennedy remarked, adding that this provides Ukraine with crucial time despite ongoing suffering.
John Owen, a politics professor at the University of Virginia, believes European unity will help Ukraine endure Russia’s attacks, provided the U.S. continues to sell military materiel to European suppliers. “Western help has been key to Ukraine’s maintaining the stalemate with Russia and I can’t see the Europeans – who are very worried about Russia in the near and medium term – reducing their aid,” Owen affirmed.
The Kremlin’s rhetoric has mirrored this shift, with Russian officials largely avoiding direct criticism of Trump while framing European leaders as “forcing” Ukraine to continue the war and undermining White House peace efforts. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, countered this narrative, stating, “If we want this war to stop and any peace to last, we need to see concessions from Russia. It’s not Ukraine’s army that is the obstacle to peace, Russia’s army is.”
Escalating Conflict and Economic Strain
The conflict, unleashed by Putin in February 2022, has defied Moscow’s initial hopes for a swift victory, devolving into a protracted and bloody war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. While official casualty figures are guarded and often distorted, Zelenskyy recently stated that 55,000 Ukrainian soldiers are known to have died, with many more missing.
Ukraine claims to have “eliminated” over 1.26 million Russian troops, an estimate largely consistent with U.S. and European intelligence. Civilian casualties remain high, with the UN Human Rights Office verifying over 15,000 deaths and 41,000 injuries in Ukraine, and Russian authorities reporting over 1,000 civilian deaths within Russia, including occupied Crimea.
Economically, both Ukraine and Russia are experiencing significant strain. Western sanctions have turned Russia into a trading pariah for Western nations, though its trade with the “Global South” continues.
Putin claimed Russia’s economy grew by only 1% last year, a figure unverified by ABC News. While inflation remains low at 6%, the base interest rate is a high 15.5%.
“What keeps the economy going is revenue from oil exports, which has been cut back by the low oil price plus stepped up U.S. and European efforts to curtail the shadow fleet carrying Russian crude to China and India,” explained Peter Rutland, a professor at Wesleyan University, adding that while the economy isn’t “collapsing,” strains are increasing. Despite this, Putin has shown little urgency in advancing peace talks.
Ukraine, meanwhile, has retaliated with its own sanctions, including kinetic strikes. Thousands of drones are now launched into Russia monthly, targeting energy infrastructure.
“We either build weapons and strike their weapons. Or we strike the source where their money is generated and multiplied.
And that source is their energy sector,” Zelenskyy declared earlier this month, asserting these are legitimate targets.
However, Kyiv is increasingly reliant on foreign financial support. The war has triggered demographic and economic crises, displacing over 10 million internally and scattering 5 million across Europe.
Ukraine’s national debt has ballooned to over $213 billion by the end of 2025, roughly equivalent to its GDP, with loans from foreign creditors, primarily the EU, surging from $30 billion in 2021 to nearly $140 billion. This figure doesn’t include a planned $106 billion EU loan currently being finalized.
Putin’s Gambit and Trump’s “Good Graces”
Despite the ongoing negotiations, Professor Owen believes Putin is operating in bad faith. The reason for continued talks, he suggests, is Putin’s need to remain in Trump’s “good graces.”
Owen argues that if Putin were to reveal his true unwillingness to make a genuine deal, Trump might turn against him, potentially restoring U.S. aid to Ukraine or taking further action against Russia. Conversely, if Trump were to decisively turn against Zelenskyy, the U.S. could halt the sale of military materiel to Europeans for Ukraine, potentially breaking the stalemate and leading to a Russian victory.
Putin has inextricably linked his legacy to the outcome in Ukraine, often indulging in historical narratives that place him alongside imperial heroes like Peter the Great, who fought for 21 years to “reclaim” Russian territory. “It seems it has fallen to us, too, to reclaim and strengthen,” Putin famously remarked.
Regardless of the war’s conclusion, it will undoubtedly define the 73-year-old leader’s place in history. As Professor Kennedy states, “He can’t give up his quest for victory against Ukraine… his legitimacy before Russians – to the extent you can call it that – depends on his ability to call Ukraine beaten.”