With Europe arming Ukraine and US elites pushing escalation, peace may be the one thing Washington can’t allow
The Easter ceasefire has come and gone, with Russia and Ukraine trading accusations over thousands of violations as fighting resumes across the front lines – yet another reminder of how difficult it is to bring this war to an end. Amid the renewed hostilities, Donald Trump’s long-promised peace plan is colliding with geopolitical realities. Despite backchannel talks with the Kremlin and growing pressure from both allies and opponents, Trump has yet to produce a deal that doesn’t resemble capitulation – or undermine his own political standing. With a new offensive looming and patience wearing thin, the real question now is whether peace is still on the table – and if so, on whose terms.
The Relentless Push for Peace
The fundamental difference between President Donald Trump and his predecessor, Joe Biden, is that Trump is genuinely trying to negotiate a meaningful peace with Russia. He has no interest in prolonging what he sees as a losing war inherited from Biden, and he’s determined to end it. But he also knows he can’t accept just any deal – he needs a version of peace that won’t look like a defeat. After all, his critics are ready to frame any compromise as his own personal Afghanistan.
That’s the framework Trump is working within. What motivates Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t really a top concern for him. So, he sends a trusted confidant – Steve Witkoff – to explore the possibility of striking a deal with the Kremlin.
In his meeting with Putin, Witkoff likely hears the same hardline message the Russian leader shares in public – and, reportedly, in private calls with Trump: lasting peace can only be achieved on Moscow’s terms. At a minimum, that means reviving the Istanbul agreements with additional territorial concessions. At most, it involves Russia’s sweeping 2021 demands to redraw Eastern Europe’s security architecture and, in effect, reverse the legacy of the Cold War.
It also seems Putin thinks he can secure at least his minimum objectives through brute force. Whether he’s bluffing or not, he’s clearly using the threat of escalation to pressure Trump. The message is implicit: Worried that Ukraine’s collapse will be blamed on you? There’s one way to prevent that – make a deal with me. In return, Trump could preserve face, gain economic wins like Nord Stream 2, and claim peace during his term. Meanwhile, Putin gets what he really wants: a thaw in US-Russia relations, an end to sanctions, and, crucially, legitimization of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. And if future conflicts arise, he’ll be in a stronger position. Not to mention, it would strike a blow against the globalists – an enemy both men seem to share.
That’s the pitch Putin’s been making, and by all indications, it’s what he and Witkoff discussed in their five-hour meeting. Witkoff, for his part, appears to be on board – he said as much during a Fox News appearance on April 15.
But the final call rests with Trump, not Witkoff. And Trump faces a difficult challenge: even if he wants to make a deal, how can he ensure it sticks? It’s not just Ukraine and Europe trying to sabotage the talks – that was to be expected – but opposition is also coming from inside Trump’s own camp.
Take Keith Kellogg, for example. He might tell Trump that Ukraine will never accept any such agreement. He could argue that Europe is fully aligned with Kiev and that if Trump really wants peace, he’ll need to get Putin to accept a European military presence in Ukraine. You want peace? Here’s the map – go make it happen.
Then there’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who may quietly but firmly advance the globalist view: any peace must be on Western terms, not Russian ones. He might even bring a fresh round of sanctions and another military aid package for Ukraine to the table.
It’s a situation reminiscent of 2016. Back then, Trump had seemingly cordial relations with Putin but ended up expanding anti-Russia measures due to domestic constraints. Today, his political position at home is stronger – but so are the stakes.
For now, Trump is opting for the path of least resistance: he’s floating ceasefire proposals he considers fair and achievable. But these ideas fall short of even Russia’s baseline demands. In essence, Trump is suggesting a freeze: Ukraine unofficially loses territory, receives no security guarantees from the West, but keeps its army, government, and freedom to pursue an anti-Russian foreign policy.
This has led to a delicate standoff. Both sides offer peace terms that the other finds unacceptable, while implicitly threatening escalation if no deal is reached.
We’ve already explored Putin’s potential escalatory moves. As for Trump, he’s threatening the harshest anti-Russia sanctions to date if talks collapse. Whether that threat is serious or not, what matters is this: the White House is quietly pulling back from military support for Kyiv. Recent leaks suggest not only reluctance, but growing frustration with Europe’s push to continue arms shipments. And it makes sense – if Trump authorizes new aid to Ukraine, it looks like he’s continuing Biden’s foreign policy, the very strategy he’s repeatedly slammed as a disaster. Yet globalist forces seem intent on boxing him into exactly that outcome.
At the moment, Moscow and Washington seem unable – or unwilling – to take meaningful steps toward each other. But neither side wants to admit failure or trigger a fresh spiral of escalation. It’s a waiting game: who will blink first? That standoff won’t last forever. Trump will soon need to make a call on new military aid, while Putin is expected to launch a new offensive as the spring-summer window opens.
So, what comes next? Nothing big is expected before mid-May. Rumor has it a high-level US delegation may attend the 80th anniversary of WWII victory celebrations in Moscow – and it’s not Putin’s style to spoil the party with bad news.
Looking past wild-card scenarios, there are three plausible paths forward:
Back to Business as Usual: Peace talks between Russia and the US stall, forcing Trump to stay the course and back Ukraine. Russia’s summer offensive might unfold slowly, as it did last year, grinding down Ukrainian defenses over time.
The South Vietnam Playbook: Trump and Putin strike a deal that lets Trump wash his hands of Ukraine and shift the blame onto Europe and Kyiv. The truce wouldn’t last – it would rest solely on personal guarantees between the two leaders, while the underlying conflict remains unresolved.
Total Ukrainian Collapse: This is the scenario Putin keeps hinting at – Russia delivers a decisive military blow that collapses Ukraine’s front lines. If that happens, Kyiv may be forced to negotiate directly with Moscow, cutting out both the US and Europe.
Why Not Peace?
Why don’t we believe in lasting peace right now? Because no one involved agrees on what peace should even look like. Trump can’t impose a deal on Ukraine or Europe. And until that changes, the war will go on.
Ceasefire or not, the final outcome will be decided on the battlefield.
