SEARCHING FOR WAYS TO END THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR IN THE D. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY (JANUARY – AUGUST 2025)

The purpose of this article is to examine the policy of the second Trump administration aimed at bringing the Russian-Ukrainian war to an end from the start of its activity to Trump-Putin meeting in Anchorage. The author seeks to identify continuity and changes in the administration’s approaches to solving the issue, and the factors that influenced these approaches. The research is based on a critical study of historical sources. It was found that the Trump administration’s approaches to ending the Russian-Ukrainian war were subject to change. During the period under study, four distinct phases can be identified in its policy. During the first phase, which covered the administration’s first 100 days, D. Trump resumed negotiations with Russia in various formats, aiming to bring the war to a swift end through concessions by Ukraine and financial and economic proposals attractive to Russia, in order to persuade Putin to agree to a ceasefire. The U.S. peace proposals, drafted before Easter, were rejected by Ukraine. During the second phase (late April – late June), the U.S. encouraged Ukraine and Russia to develop proposals to end the war, and supported direct negotiations between them. Russia’s continued airstrikes on Ukrainian cities amid the negotiations led to a shift in Trump’s rhetoric and in the U.S. approaches to cooperation with NATO members on bringing the war to an end. However, the U.S. commitment to diplomacy and mutual concessions by the parties remained unwavering. After direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia reached an impasse, amid Russia’s offensive on the front lines, continued attacks on the civilian population, and Putin’s more candid statements about his true intentions, during the third phase (late June–early August) Trump agreed to resume military aid to Ukraine, which European states were supposed to pay for, and threatened additional sanctions and secondary tariffs if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire. The fourth phase (August 5–15) involved preparation and organization of Trump–Putin meeting in Anchorage. The administration believed that the meeting would lead to a breakthrough in the negotiations. During the preparatory phase, it returned to its initial position regarding concessions to Russia. Moreover, it dropped its demand for a ceasefire prior to the peace negotiations. The lack of results from the Anchorage meeting and the negotiation process as a whole prompted the Trump administration to seek other ways to end the war, which is the subject of a separate study.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Mìžnarodnì zv’âzki Ukraïni naukovì pošuki ì znahìdki
Published
2026-11-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15407/mzu2026.35.059
Primary Topic
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

SEARCHING FOR WAYS TO END THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR IN THE D. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY (JANUARY – AUGUST 2025)

Nataliya Gorodnia
7 links
Mìžnarodnì zv’âzki Ukraïni naukovì pošuki ì znahìdki
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
article

SEARCHING FOR WAYS TO END THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR IN THE D. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY (JANUARY – AUGUST 2025)

Nataliya Gorodnia
article en

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the policy of the second Trump administration aimed at bringing the Russian-Ukrainian war to an end from the start of its activity to Trump-Putin meeting in Anchorage. The author seeks to identify continuity and changes in the administration’s approaches to solving the issue, and the factors that influenced these approaches. The research is based on a critical study of historical sources. It was found that the Trump administration’s approaches to ending the Russian-Ukrainian war were subject to change. During the period under study, four distinct phases can be identified in its policy. During the first phase, which covered the administration’s first 100 days, D. Trump resumed negotiations with Russia in various formats, aiming to bring the war to a swift end through concessions by Ukraine and financial and economic proposals attractive to Russia, in order to persuade Putin to agree to a ceasefire. The U.S. peace proposals, drafted before Easter, were rejected by Ukraine. During the second phase (late April – late June), the U.S. encouraged Ukraine and Russia to develop proposals to end the war, and supported direct negotiations between them. Russia’s continued airstrikes on Ukrainian cities amid the negotiations led to a shift in Trump’s rhetoric and in the U.S. approaches to cooperation with NATO members on bringing the war to an end. However, the U.S. commitment to diplomacy and mutual concessions by the parties remained unwavering. After direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia reached an impasse, amid Russia’s offensive on the front lines, continued attacks on the civilian population, and Putin’s more candid statements about his true intentions, during the third phase (late June–early August) Trump agreed to resume military aid to Ukraine, which European states were supposed to pay for, and threatened additional sanctions and secondary tariffs if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire. The fourth phase (August 5–15) involved preparation and organization of Trump–Putin meeting in Anchorage. The administration believed that the meeting would lead to a breakthrough in the negotiations. During the preparatory phase, it returned to its initial position regarding concessions to Russia. Moreover, it dropped its demand for a ceasefire prior to the peace negotiations. The lack of results from the Anchorage meeting and the negotiation process as a whole prompted the Trump administration to seek other ways to end the war, which is the subject of a separate study.

Mìžnarodnì zv’âzki Ukraïni naukovì pošuki ì znahìdki(35)
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (UA)
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon