Donald Trump’s re-election as US president has brought a completely new dynamic to negotiations on the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Trump and his team want to end the war as quickly as possible but do not have a plan for a ceasefire or peace agreement. This became clear from various and sometimes contradictory statements made by representatives of the US administration at the Munich Security Conference earlier in February.
It is clear that Trump is seeking an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin without actually involving the Ukrainian leadership and European governments in the negotiations. This is also in line with Putin’s ideas; he wants to talk to just the US president about Ukraine and European security. However, Ukraine and Europe must then bear the consequences of a deal, and, above all, the Europeans must secure and fund it.
Ukraine has no agency in such an agreement, and Kyiv has been trying to switch to the transactional modus of the Trump administration to build up a bargaining position. Therefore, it is agreeing to a rare earthers and raw material deal (likely to be signed on February 28) with the aim of least getting further military support from the United States. But it is clear that the Trump administration wants to benefit economically from its support for Ukraine while it is not willing to give any security guarantees. Supporting Ukraine only because it is fighting for its own survival and the future European security order, is not sufficient for the new US administration.
The fact that US Vice President JD Vance has already met Russian demands in the run-up to negotiations, such as Ukraine not being permitted to join NATO and the transfer of Ukrainian territory to Russia, including Crimea, makes it clear that the US leadership is prepared to make massive concessions to the Kremlin in order to get this issue off the table as quickly as possible.
Does Moscow Want a Quick End?
However, at a meeting in the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh on February 18, representatives from both sides made it clear that the negotiations could become much more complicated and protracted. It is doubtful whether the Russian leadership has any interest in ending the war. A quick end would be problematic for the Kremlin, as it would hardly be possible to bring the war economy to a rapid halt without high costs and economic upheaval.
For Putin’s system, the war against Ukraine has become a central source of legitimacy as a proxy war against the West. If this war ceases, the socio-economic problems and lack of prospects for development will once again become more apparent. So far, Moscow has not backed down from its demands in relation to Ukraine in any respect. In addition to the rejection of NATO membership and the surrender of Ukrainian territories under international law, some of which Russian troops have not even conquered yet, this would include the demilitarization of Ukraine and new elections. Moscow’s strategy could be to use maximum demands to prevent a negotiation outcome or to ultimately achieve a capitulation by Ukraine and a regime change after all.
Delegitimization through Elections
The Russian leadership has been trying for some time to delegitimize Volodymyr Zelensky as Ukrainian president by arguing that no elections were held in Ukraine in March 2024—Trump echoed this when he denounced Zelensky as a “dictator.” However, according to the Ukrainian constitution, no elections may be held under martial law, and it would be impossible anyway to hold functional elections during a massive war of aggression on an entire country.
New elections after a ceasefire and the lifting of martial law would enable the Russian leadership to achieve two goals: on the one hand, massive electoral interference could ultimately bring a pro-Moscow puppet regime to power and, if such an effort does not succeed, the Kremlin could further delegitimize the newly elected government, as the elections would take place under problematic conditions.
The second goal would be to further destabilize Europe through a massive wave of Ukrainian refugees after the lifting of martial law and the opening of Ukraine’s borders in a situation in which the country is lacking security guarantees. Not only would Ukraine lose potential soldiers for a renewed attack by Russia, but the migration debate would flare up again and support for Ukraine would be fundamentally called into question.
The dangerous factor here is that Trump is being massively influenced by Russian disinformation, spreading its narratives and Russian conspiracy theories. His claim that Zelensky is an illegitimate president comes straight from the textbook of Russian political strategists, who are pointedly aiming at the delegitimization of Zelensky to force new elections. Russian narratives and conspiracy theories are widespread in the right-wing networks in which Trump and his entourage operate.
This also means that the current US leadership is more likely to believe Russian arguments with regard to the causes of the war than to recognize them as part of a Russian policy of subversion. This will further weaken the Ukrainian negotiating position vis-à-vis Russia and could lead to a rupture between the US and Ukraine. Trump is becoming an amplifier of Russian conspiracy theories worldwide and is developing his policy toward Ukraine on the basis of these narratives.
Reshaping the European Security Order
This is all good news for the Russian leadership, as Trump basically recognizes Russian narratives as reality and is systematically destroying the remnants of the West’s shared values and alliances. Like Putin, he is acting transactionally and demonstrating a lack of any diplomatic skill or even knowledge of geopolitical contexts. There is no longer a transatlantic alliance as we know it and the cohesion between Europe and the US is being eroded further with each day. The US, once a reference point for liberal democracy, human rights, and independent media, is becoming an enabler of authoritarian governance.
This brings Putin closer to his goals of defining zones of influence in Europe and indirectly obtaining a Russian veto on all security issues. The Kremlin is not concerned with four regions in eastern Ukraine or even Ukraine alone, but with Russia’s role in the European security order and in a global context. Together with China and Iran, the Russian leadership wants to put an end to the US-dominated order and become a pole in a multipolar order. Trump is not only handing over Ukraine to Putin, but also Europe, which cannot defend itself without US security guarantees.
It is now becoming all the clearer that the German and European denial of reality over the past decade is going to lead to high costs for Ukraine and Europe as a whole. The costs of inaction are becoming brutally visible. Europe and Ukraine are ultimately at the mercy of US policy and, without support from Washington, are barely able to act or defend themselves. Europe's lack of leadership, for which the outgoing German government is largely to blame, could now even lead to Ukraine’s capitulation and Europe’s surrender to Russian interests.
Following the principles of hope and denial of reality, many European governments first wished for Trump not to be re-elected and then for things not to be so bad. In the process, valuable years were lost, during which Europe could have made itself more capable of defense and action and thus less dependent on US security guarantees.
At the moment, Europe would not be able to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine without US support. It has neither the troops, nor the air support, nor the logistics to do so. However, if Europe wants to sit at the negotiating table, it must make offers to Washington that show it can take responsibility for Ukraine and for its own security.
Stefan Meister leads the Center for Order and Governance in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP).
