US-led Ukraine peace talks favor Russia, but future remains uncertain

TALLINN, Estonia. An ongoing U.S.-led push to end the war in Ukraine is generating intense scrutiny, with early indications suggesting a peace deal that leans in favor of Russia’s interests, even as definitive terms remain elusive and diplomatic messaging grows increasingly inconsistent.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who has taken the lead in this effort, has drawn sharp criticism for publicly chastising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, echoing Russian narratives, and signaling that Ukraine may need to cede occupied territories and abandon hopes of joining NATO. In a notable shift, Trump has also resumed a dialogue with Moscow, which was once considered improbable.

However, more recent remarks from Trump have complicated the picture. His social media posts have hinted at skepticism toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting that Moscow may be “stringing him along.” Despite ongoing rhetoric, a concrete peace deal has yet to emerge.

Amid these developments, the U.S. and Ukraine signed a significant agreement on Wednesday granting the United States access to Ukraine’s vast mineral resources. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy lauded the agreement as the first major outcome of a “truly historic” meeting with Trump at the Vatican, held before Pope Francis’s funeral.

Dialogue Resumes Between U.S. and Russia

One key gain for Moscow is the resumption of high-level dialogue with Washington after years of tension following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. According to Nikolay Petrov, a senior research fellow at the New Eurasian Strategies Centre, the conversations have covered more than just the war. Discussions between Trump and Putin in March included issues such as strategic arms control, Middle East stability, and even potential cultural exchanges like joint hockey events.

Russian state media emphasized that talks between Putin and Trump envoy Steve Witkoff reflected a new global dynamic, reporting that the two sides were building “a new structure of the world” together.

“In this sense, Putin already got a part of what he sought,” said Petrov, pointing to the image of Russia as equal to the United States on the world stage.

Trump has reportedly expressed acceptance of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, stating it “will stay with Russia.” Peace proposals floated by Trump’s team reportedly included allowing Russia to retain control over other occupied Ukrainian regions. During a combative Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy on February 28, Trump criticized the Ukrainian leader for rejecting the idea of territorial concessions and dismissed Ukraine’s NATO ambitions as unlikely.

These positions align closely with Russia’s long-standing demands, raising concerns that Trump’s approach is effectively mirroring the Kremlin’s.

“Is there any part of this that doesn’t look like a win for Russia? No,” said Sam Greene, director of the Democratic Resilience Program at King’s College London. He noted that Trump appears more intent on pressuring Kyiv than Moscow, in an effort to swiftly resolve the conflict and normalize U.S.-Russia relations for potential business gains.

Still No Deal on the Table

Despite all the talk, nothing has yet been formalized. Sergey Radchenko, a historian at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, noted that peace terms remain “very much in the air,” and reconciling the core demands of both Russia and Ukraine remains a formidable challenge.

Ukraine continues to reject any territorial concessions and is demanding strong security guarantees, potentially involving international peacekeepers—a proposal already dismissed by Russia. In contrast, Moscow insists on keeping all occupied territories, opposes NATO membership for Ukraine, and has called for the country’s “demilitarization.”

“If there are restrictions on the kinds of weapons Ukraine can receive (from the West) or the size of the army, then it will be very difficult to get them to accept this sort of agreement,” Radchenko warned.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently escalated tensions by declaring that international recognition of Russia’s annexed Ukrainian territories is “imperative” for any peace deal, an expectation widely condemned by Western nations as a violation of international law.

Ceasefire Gesture and U.S. Pressure

In a bid to appear cooperative, Putin announced a 72-hour ceasefire starting May 8, coinciding with Russia’s Victory Day celebrations. But Zelenskyy dismissed the gesture as “manipulation,” calling instead for an immediate and longer-lasting ceasefire.

Analysts suggest Putin may have a vested interest in prolonging the war to achieve further battlefield gains. Meanwhile, key U.S. officials—including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have threatened to abandon the peace initiative if no progress is made soon.

Scott Bessent, U.S. Treasury Secretary, sought to reaffirm American commitment, stating that the newly signed mineral access deal “signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term.”

Still, questions remain about Washington’s intentions if talks collapse. “When the Trump administration says they’ll walk away, we don’t know what that means. Does that mean they walk away from negotiations and keep supporting Ukraine?” Greene asked.

Greene believes neither Ukraine nor Russia is certain about the future of U.S. military aid should negotiations fail. “I think it’s very difficult for the Kremlin to calculate the risks of dragging this out,” he added.

If Trump were to withdraw from the peace process while simultaneously lifting sanctions and normalizing relations with Moscow, it would mark a “major breakthrough” for Putin, Radchenko observed. However, Greene noted that such a move would face strong resistance from Congress, where many sanctions are tied directly to the ongoing conflict.

As efforts continue, the international community remains on edge, awaiting whether rhetoric will evolve into a real peace framework or dissolve into another prolonged diplomatic standoff.