Ukrainian society hoped that a change of power in Washington would bring an end to the war or at least create conditions for a ceasefire. Many expected that Donald Trump, returning to the White House, would propose a new peace formula or find a common language with Putin. However, the first months of the new administration proved the opposite: instead of solutions, the world received confusion, diplomatic incompetence and a palpable indulgence in Russian rhetoric.
Analyst of the Stockholm Center for East European Studies Andreas Umland, analyzing actions of the USA and the prospects for the end of the war, recalled the assessment formulated by the German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz at the beginning of the 19th century:
“A conqueror is always peaceful; he would prefer to quietly invade our country.”
This phrase, according to Umland, remains relevant in the context of most military aggressions.
He believes that after the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war in 2014, most European politicians, diplomats and commentators actually ignored this fundamental thesis. Instead, until 2022, they relied on a false assumption: if the Kremlin publicly declares its peaceful intentions towards Ukraine, then it is possible and necessary to negotiate with it in order to moderate aggressiveness and force Russia to reduce the level of tension.
Umland emphasized that this assumption ignored the fact that it became apparent already in 2014: Putin simply chose a non-violent way to take over Ukraine at that time. It is about the use of agent influence, collaborators and a covert invasion with limited forces instead of a full-scale occupation.
The analyst emphasized that at that time the war did not bring political benefits to the Kremlin. Putin considered it expedient not to launch tens of thousands of soldiers, but to act point by point, undermining Ukraine’s statehood from within. But over the past three years, Umland noted, the role of the military invasion has changed. He stated that the war itself now serves to stabilize the Russian political system, which increasingly relies on a radical ideology, a militarized economy, and a mobilized society.
At the same time, Umland stated that a significant part of the political class in Europe has lost its illusions about Putin. But in Washington, the situation is reversed. He drew attention to the fact that until January 2025, a realistic vision of Russian strategy prevailed in the US, but after the new administration came to power, it was replaced by escapism.
Umland believes that the level of political naivety, moral indifference and diplomatic dilettantism displayed by the Trump team during the first four months is depressing. According to him, even compared to Trump’s first term, the current statements and actions cause surprise and concern in European capitals.
The analyst does not rule out that among the reasons is not only strategic short-sightedness, but also a certain sympathy of Trump and his entourage for Putin. He noted that four months of American “shuttle diplomacy” and attempts to play the role of a mediator ended with meager results. The two-hour conversation between Trump and Putin, which took place last week, also did not bring anything concrete.
Umland stated that no real breakthrough had occurred: only the exchange of prisoners of war, intensive tripartite consultations and direct contacts between the presidents of the USA and the Russian Federation. At the same time, the analyst noted, Putin made it clear immediately after the phone conversation: a ceasefire is currently impossible.
He drew attention to two points in Putin’s statements. First, the use of the term “memorandum” in the context of a possible agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Umland stressed that this term is not accidental: it is a direct reference to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, when Russia, the United States and Great Britain guaranteed Ukraine’s security in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons. Moscow, according to the analyst, openly violated both the letter and the spirit of this agreement – and now cynically offers another “memorandum”.
Secondly, Putin noted that even if an agreement is reached, the ceasefire will only be temporary. According to Umland, this is a factual admission: the current structure of the Russian economy, military production and mobilization does not allow the Kremlin to stop the war. It became the basis of the regime.
The analyst posed a logical question: what to do with millions of people mobilized in the war? With enterprises that mass-produce weapons? With the hate information machine that permeates Russian schools, television, and culture? He emphasized that Russia cannot abruptly stop hostilities – for this a radical break is needed.
Umland believes that such a break can only happen as a result of a military defeat. He recalled examples from history: the defeat in the Crimean War of 1854–1856 paved the way for the reforms of Alexander II, the war lost by Russia with Japan in 1904–1905 led to parliamentary concessions, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 became one of the catalysts for reconstruction.
Umland noted that Russian imperialism cannot be neutralized by negotiations, compromises or concessions. Such actions only strengthen the aggressive position of the Kremlin. He emphasized that only a deep defeat on the battlefield can change the paradigm.
In conclusion, the analyst stated that one day the war will end, and Russian crimes in Ukraine will stop. But for this, Russian society must realize that war does not lead to victory, but only to internal catastrophe, losses and defeat. And only then will the Kremlin be forced to curtail its expansionist policy.
