With Donald Trump's presence in the White House, many had hoped that a ceasefire in Ukraine would become America's first major achievement. However, the efforts of the White House incumbent were not aligned with the established structures in Moscow and Washington. Despite several phone calls between the Russian and American leaders and meetings between special envoys, accompanied by the exchange of very positive rhetoric, no tangible results were achieved. It is possible that Putin failed to capitalize on this opportunity, focusing instead on advancing on the battlefield, the groundwork for which had been laid by the restriction of American arms shipments. This was because Trump, in a calculated and tactical plan to resolve two fundamental issues in West Asia—namely, operationalizing the plan for Assad's downfall and weakening Iran—felt a serious need for a green light from the Kremlin.
Since his inauguration in January, Donald Trump had moved closer to Vladimir Putin, pushing for an end to the conflict in Ukraine. However, the past six months had failed to yield any concrete progress. While his administration announced last week that it had decided to halt the supply of weapons to Kyiv, citing concerns about depleting U.S. weapon stockpiles, the White House later tried to downplay the impact of this move, suggesting that arms supplies to Kyiv could resume. Concurrently, on July 8, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump once again expressed his dissatisfaction with the Russian leader, stating that he was considering imposing further sanctions on Moscow and affirming his frustration with the rising number of casualties in the war between Russia and Ukraine. During a meeting with his cabinet members at the White House, he said, "Putin gives us a lot of nonsense, if you want to know the truth. He's always very nice, but that means nothing." Trump assured that he would study the Senate bill aimed at imposing new sanctions on Russia very carefully.
On the other side of the conflict, the Russian Foreign Minister states that Moscow remains open to a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict, but that negotiations must focus on a sustainable peace, not a ceasefire. Lavrov adds that Russia insists any peace treaty with Ukraine include conditions such as the country's demilitarization and de-Nazification. The treaty must also entail the waiver of all legal actions against Russia, the lifting of sanctions, and the return of confiscated assets to Moscow—issues that are fundamental to eliminating the root causes of the conflict.
Of course, another key demand from the Kremlin is the elimination of threats to Russia's security related to NATO expansion and Ukraine's involvement in this military bloc. Furthermore, it demands guarantees for the respect of human rights, culture, traditions, canonical Orthodoxy, and Russian-language media in the territories remaining under the control of the Kyiv regime. Most importantly, it requires the recognition of the new territorial realities that have emerged with the accession of Crimea, Sevastopol, the Donetsk People's Republic, the Luhansk People's Republic, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson to Russia. This is a set of demands that is worlds apart from the desires of Ukraine and its Western supporters.
Russia has consistently accused Western leaders of trying to divert attention from their inability to solve real problems. It believes that by citing a mythical Russian threat, Westerners are attempting to deflect from their failure to address issues like inflation, rising unemployment, declining real incomes, illegal immigration, and the associated increase in crime. It is no secret that a united Europe is fanning anti-Russian sentiment, reviving its military-industrial complex, and calling for war against Russia. The European Union has rapidly transformed from an economic and political union into a quasi-NATO military and political bloc. In this vein, at the NATO summit in The Hague in June, the allies decided to significantly increase defense spending. In a way, the U.S. achieved one of its key demands—increasing European defense budgets to 5% of GDP during the Trump era—by highlighting the Russian threat in tandem with the advances of the Red Army's forces in Ukraine.
In summary, it must be acknowledged that Washington has been relatively successful in achieving its multiple objectives: shaping its defense and security relations with the European continent, increasing European defense budgets, leveraging Russian silence on issues in West Asia, and, most importantly, securing a deal to exploit Ukraine's valuable resources. It is possible that Trump's tactic of staging a "honeymoon" with Mr. Putin had these complex and significant goals in mind.
In any case, the Ukraine crisis is one of the most fundamental and attritional challenges for Russia and the European continent, having become an existential issue for both sides. Its beginning seemed easy, but there is no short-term hope for an exit. On the other hand, recent developments in the interactions between Washington and Moscow indicate that the short-lived honeymoon between Trump and Putin is nearing its end. The final word is that the Ukraine conflict is a historic battle between unbridled liberalism and an authoritarian Russia. This conflict has caused a serious stagnation in relations between the European continent and Iran, fueled by false Western and Zionist regime propaganda about Iranian drone assistance to Russia. The reality, based on historical experience, is that any participation by third parties in the power struggles of great powers yields no gains and may, in the future, incur a cost.
Ali Beman Eghbali Zarch, Head of the Eurasia Studies Group
(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)