The political game continues: Putin and Trump’s conversation as opaque diplomacy with worrying consequences for Ukraine

In recent months, more and more politicians, analysts and military experts have associated May 2025 with the possibility of the end of Russia’s war against Ukraine. During this period, there were expectations of decisions on American aid, negotiations in Istanbul, activation of the positions of France and China, as well as potential pressure from the United States. However, May is coming to an end, and most of the hopes that were previously formed now appear to be postponed, diluted or revised.

Meetings, telephone conversations, interstate consultations and public appeals for peace continue almost daily, but none of them give even the slightest sign of ending the war. It is becoming increasingly clear that the negotiation process is less and less about finding a balance and more and more about a political game. Every statement and “peace plan” is an element of foreign policy bargaining, and not a sincere attempt to stop hostilities. Today, the conversation around which too many expectations, anxieties and assumptions have accumulated finally took place – Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin once again entered into direct communication. And although the very fact of contact was quite predictable, its content still remains opaque.

Trump and Putin: “intelligence by combat”

On May 19, a closed conversation between US President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin lasted more than two hours — and, according to Putin himself, the war in Ukraine was at its epicenter. The American side is still silent, and meanwhile the Russian propaganda machine has already managed to roll out its “news about peace” without any details about Moscow’s alleged readiness for a memorandum with Kyiv regarding a possible future peace treaty and a potential ceasefire.

In his traditional manner of wordy ambiguity, Putin talked about a “constructive” conversation, “the need to find compromises” and even that Moscow is “ready to work on a memorandum” on ending hostilities. He once again repeated the old platitude about “eliminating the causes of the conflict”, implying that the responsibility for the war lies not with the Russian Federation, but with Ukraine. And again – no specifics, only words about “restoration of contacts” between the interlocutors in Istanbul, which do not have a clear public basis.

This is a typical technique of the Kremlin: under the guise of seeking peace, to impose its conditions, which are primarily beneficial to Russia. In this case, it is to fix the front line, maintain control over the captured territories and get international recognition of this state as a basis for “settlement”.

Meanwhile, the White House and Trump himself have so far refrained from making any public statements. No press releases, comments or even tweets. And this silence is more eloquent than any wording. The fact that Donald Trump is again – and far from the first time – conducting closed negotiations with Vladimir Putin is no longer surprising. Another thing is striking: in the USA, the details are not made public, the contents of the conversations are not disclosed, leaving the information field completely at the disposal of the Kremlin. This gives space for the Kremlin to play on its field: to present itself as a constructive side, and at the same time to try on the suit of a peacemaker again, without changing the essence of its policy.

In this case, the key question is: what exactly is meant by “ceasefire for a certain time”. The formula is already sounding: if they agree, there will be a pause. But under what conditions? The Kremlin talks about compromises, but in its language it means: “give up your lands, recognize our demands, forget about Crimea and Donbas.”

The memorandum that Putin is talking about is not a peace agreement. This is a way to stop active hostilities without actually solving anything. That is, the war will not end soon, but will simply change its face: it will become a frozen conflict, with the potential for escalation at any moment. Such a scenario with another telephone conversation between two influential politicians is a well-known tool for delaying time. For Ukraine, this is a signal to prepare for a tough period. The pressure on Kyiv will increase: there will be more and more talk about the need for compromises, a cease-fire, “tiredness of the West” and “new realities.” This means both the risk of reducing the amount of military support and attempts to convince the Ukrainian authorities to agree to conditions that were previously considered unacceptable.

Given Putin’s statements, the conversation was likely a test bullet or a political intelligence battle, that is, an attempt to learn the limits of what is acceptable for Trump, who has already said that he “can end a war in 24 hours.” For the Kremlin, this approach is ideal: to consolidate the gains, to force Ukraine to agree to territorial concessions, to put Europe in front of the facts and at the same time return to the global diplomatic game as an equal player. The Kremlin is trying to test the Western boundaries of flexibility. If Washington’s silence continues, it will be an invitation to the next step. If a clear position is voiced, Moscow will receive a boundary beyond which it should not be crossed. Today the ball is in the American court, but tomorrow it can become a Russian lever in a game where the sovereignty of Ukraine is at stake.

Trump as a key figure in the resolution of the military conflict

Against this background, the central figure — Donald Trump — is emerging more and more clearly. It is his individual position, reaction to specific conversations, personal sympathies and political calculations that become not just an important factor, but a potential breaking point. And it depends on whom he will listen to, what signals he will receive and what he will decide to say publicly, in which direction the diplomatic configuration will shift in the coming months.

While Russian Lancets are hitting shuttle buses in Bilopyl, and Ukrainian drones are attacking oil depots in Belgorod, the main battle of this phase of the war is taking place not at the front, but in the diplomatic arena. The war in Ukraine is increasingly turning into a struggle for the influence of the US president, who avoids systematic positions, but is ready to listen. The only question is: who is the last? Both Putin and Trump consider themselves personally capable of “derailing” this war, pushing Ukraine and Europe to the side. Instead of complex diplomacy with many players, there is now a dangerous game of “let’s settle for two”. Moreover, each of the participants tries to change the views of the other not with arguments, but with flattery, pressure, benefits and, perhaps, concessions at the expense of a third party.

However, these negotiations are not conducted through diplomats, not in the Rammstein format, and not in the presence of Ukraine. They are closed, private, personalized. Putin is waiting for the moment when he can be alone with the American president to “pour into his ear” as much as Trump is ready to accommodate. He knows he is dealing with a leader whose opinion is shaped by who speaks last and with confidence. At the same time, European capitals are nervous – in Paris and Berlin they understand that if Trump “switches” to another position after one call from the Kremlin, this could mean blackmailing Kyiv regarding military aid. Or, in the worst case, an attempt to impose a “peace plan” drawn up in Moscow. Volodymyr Zelensky recently had preliminary contact with Donald Trump at the funeral of the Pope, but experience suggests that Trump does not have a “consistent line”, he has instant sympathy and personal impressions.

Unfortunately, Ukraine today is not the subject of the main dialogue — it is an object, a figure in the negotiations between two ambitious and influential leaders of the states. And Kyiv’s main fear is that after the conversation with Putin, Trump will call Zelensky with a ready-made “peace package”. If this package says anything about “acknowledgment of control”, “freeze”, “neutral status” or “referendums”, it will be an attempt at political dictation. And then — either agree or lose your weapons, funding, diplomatic shield.

But there is another side: the Kremlin is also afraid of Trump. Because if he, annoyed or deceived, decides to increase support for Ukraine, it will mean the continuation of the war with a new level of intensity. The Russian economy is exhausted, the army has lost its reserves, and mobilization takes place through administrative violence. And in these conditions, Putin critically needs to show that it is Ukraine that is disrupting the agreements. His entire bet is on Trump’s conviction that it is Kyiv that is blocking peace.

At the same time, none of the parties — neither Moscow nor Kyiv — is ready to make concessions that could create a real basis for ending the war. Ukraine does not recognize the loss of territories. Russia does not recognize Ukraine as an equal party. All talks are not a search for a compromise, they are a search for arguments to put pressure on the US. And every step is a game for Trump to establish himself as the main arbiter, regardless of institutions, allies or the actual logic of events.

So telephone diplomacy has become the main arena of this phase of the war, where the belligerents are vying for Donald Trump’s ear. And until Trump has made up his mind, she will not stop. But there is a risk that when it is finally “decided”, the price of the compromise will be set without the participation of Ukraine itself.

Possible scenarios of the development of events

The condition that unites all versions of the negotiations is Putin’s attempt to use the political chaos of the US under Trump to impose his own format of peace: maintaining control over the occupied territories, withdrawing Ukraine from NATO, lifting sanctions and domestic concessions in humanitarian policy. This strategy is not designed for an instant agreement, but for stopping or significantly reducing Western support for Ukraine. After that, Russia will try to take control of all of Ukraine not by military means, but by the method of the Georgian scenario — by stratification, destabilization, imposition of internal political compromises and gradual dismantling of statehood.

The Kremlin’s published conditions actually boil down to the demands of the new architecture: Ukraine’s neutrality, ban on the presence of foreign contingents, maintaining control over four regions, Kyiv’s renunciation of claims to Crimea and other regions, lack of reparations, cessation of mobilization, limitation of the Armed Forces, return to the “unified historical heritage” through humanitarian revision. Some of the conditions are addressed directly to Washington, while others require strict pressure on Kyiv. But it is unrealistic to implement some of them even if Trump wishes.

Based on the available statements of the parties, today there are at least eight possible scenarios for the development of further events, and all of them are based on different levels of readiness of Putin to abandon his maximalist demands:

1. Minimum ceasefire agreement. Putin removes the harshest conditions, Trump agrees to some concessions (sanctions, nuclear power plants, “neutral status”) and the parties announce a truce on the front line. The USA presents it as a compromise, the Russian Federation – as a diplomatic victory.
2. Escalation after the failure of negotiations. Putin does not abandon unenforceable clauses. Trump reacts with a tough public stance, announces sanctions, military support, returns the rhetoric of “deterring the aggressor”. In response, Medvedev threatens a new phase of the war. A cycle of mutual pressure begins, which either ends in concessions or enters a threatening phase.
3. Temporary freezing. Trump does not want to destroy the possibility of dialogue, so he does not introduce new sanctions, but he does not remove old ones either. Putin does not give in, but avoids a sharp confrontation. Aid to Ukraine is maintained, but without a decisive expansion. Scenario of temporary balance maintenance without a breakthrough.
4. Selective agreement without the consent of Kyiv. The US agrees to concessions from the Russian Federation, in particular regarding the front line or neutrality, but Zelensky refuses. Trump cuts aid, pressure mounts. Kyiv remains with the partial support of Europe, but the situation at the front is deteriorating.
5. Kyiv’s refusal even under the conditions of a compromise between Trump and Putin. A low-probability, but possible scenario: the USA and the Russian Federation agree on a truce, but Ukraine refuses. This leads to the threat of a complete break with Washington.
6. Agreement on other issues. The Russian Federation and the USA agree on the lifting of sanctions in exchange for favorable concessions for Washington in third regions or issues, and the Ukrainian front is used as a trading card. The war continues, but to the accompaniment of new global agreements.
7. Symbolic agreement without execution. The parties publicly announce “understanding” and “movement towards peace”, but the conditions are unrealistic. This allows Trump to look like a peacemaker and Putin to buy time. No changes at the front, postponement in diplomacy.
8. An internal explosion in Ukraine as a goal. The Kremlin is not pressuring Trump for peace, but for him to stop supporting Kyiv and start internal destabilization. The goal is to bring Ukraine to political exhaustion and force it into a capitulation model, without using a broad frontal offensive.

Thus, the war in Ukraine takes the form of a protracted geopolitical game, in which each subsequent agreement may not be the end, but the beginning of a new stage of the conflict. At the same time, every closed telephone conversation between Trump and Putin is an attempt to redefine the architecture of influence, where Ukraine remains at the center of the attack, but not at the center of the decision-making process.

Ukraine should not place excessive hopes on the result of long-winded international negotiations, which continue without clear commitments and practical solutions. What we are witnessing recently, in particular, the meeting in Istanbul, looks more like an attempt to end the war, but a protracted game for spheres of influence, where Ukrainian interests increasingly become a bargaining chip. For many political players and large business corporations, this war has become a tool for the implementation of their strategic plans, as well as an extremely profitable channel for obtaining profits. But behind the facade of diplomacy and these trades are the real human destinies of Ukrainians, destroyed cities and the future of our country, which is fighting for the right to independently determine its own path of development. And this is what is too often ignored in the global dialogue.