Although the Russian-American negotiations could be framed as an attempt to ‘reset’ bilateral relations, there is no real progress in resolving the war. Ukraine still finds itself in a precarious position. Without drastic changes in Washington’s approach or a significant increase in European aid, Kyiv’s prospects remain grim, and Moscow’s window of opportunity stays open. An analysis for RAAM by political analyst Anton Barbashin, editorial director of Riddle.

Trump and Zelensky in the Vatican, April 2025. Photo: Office of the President of Ukraine / ANP / AFP

Little over three months ago, Donald Trump returned to the White House, loudly promising, among other things, to end the war in Ukraine. His rhetoric, as during his first term, was filled with bold statements that sparked heated debates worldwide. His tone is often highly complementary toward Vladimir Putin and Russia, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has faced  sharp criticism over the past months. Trump accuses Zelensky of disrespecting the U.S., making excessive demands, and even starting the war. In contrast, he calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘saving’ and a leader seeking peace, describing Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities as mere ‘mistakes‘ that don’t reflect the Kremlin’s true intentions.

However, Trump’s mood and comments change fast and after the Vatican meeting with Zelensky, US is slightly shifting the discourse towards highlighting that it is Moscow that ‘demands too much’. Without formally accusing one side or the other, Trump states that one side of the conflict is much closer to the deal than the other.

Now many are wondering whether US will pull out of the peace process altogether it is time to take stock of what was actually accomplished so far in US – Russia relations since Trump took office.

Russian-American ‘reset’: first steps and their limits

The most visible progress so far has been in Russian-American negotiations, which could be framed as an attempt to ‘reset’ bilateral relations. However, it’s too early to speak of significant successes. This format so far remains the only one that has any visible progress. Both sides have agreed on the need to restore full operations of diplomatic missions, which have been severely limited in recent years due to mutual sanctions, diplomat expulsions, and other restrictions. Moscow and Washington have discussed details of reopening embassies at least three times, including issues of staff numbers, funding, and logistics. Yet, even on this seemingly technical matter, no compromise has been reached.

The main obstacles stem from financial constraints caused by sanctions and Russia’s ban on hiring local technical staff for U.S. diplomatic missions. Moscow insists on lifting certain restrictions to ensure the normal functioning of its embassies and consulates in the U.S. Washington, in turn, demands greater transparency from Russia on security issues and guarantees of non-interference in American diplomats’ work. These disagreements highlight how fragile the dialogue remains, despite the outward rhetoric of ‘warming’ relations. 

Anton Barbashin

Politiek analist

Anton Barbashin is politiek analist. Hij is medeoprichter en redactiedirecteur van Riddle Russia.

Beyond the diplomatic agenda, Russia is actively pushing economic initiatives in the talks, including Arctic cooperation, energy projects, and rare earth metal extraction. These proposals appear ambitious, but they face serious hurdles. First, any major economic projects require at least partial sanctions relief, a politically sensitive issue for the USA. Moreover, if Trump does decide to blame Russia for failed US talks – US will likely consider imposing new set of sanctions against Russia.

Second, there’s no consensus in Washington on the feasibility of such cooperation, especially amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Moscow, however, persists with these initiatives, viewing them as a means of both economic and political leverage over the U.S. 

The issue of sanctions permeates nearly every aspect of the negotiations. From restoring embassy operations to resuming Aeroflot flights to the U.S., from Arctic projects to proposals for a temporary ceasefire in the Black Sea, Russia seeks ways to ease or circumvent restrictions. For example, Moscow suggested using frozen Russian assets to purchase U.S.-made aircraft and parts. However, the U.S. is not ready to make such concessions, fearing it could be seen as a weakening of its position.

The only clear success so far was a hostage exchange in early April. Despite its limited scope, Trump was able to present the exchange as a personal victory and proof of his approach’s effectiveness in dealing with Russia. However, this gesture of goodwill is unlikely to be a breakthrough in the broader context, as it doesn’t address the core issues of bilateral relations. 

Ukraine: on the periphery of attention?

Despite Ukraine being central to Trump’s rhetoric, in practice, it takes a backseat. The lack of a clear framework for talks between Russia, the U.S., and Ukraine makes this track the least productive. In mid-March, the parties formally agreed to a 30-day pause in strikes on energy infrastructure as a first step toward de-escalation. In practice, this agreement was not honored. Attacks continued, with their intensity increasing over the past month. The parties blame each other for violating the deal: Moscow claims the terms were misinterpreted, while Kyiv and Washington point to numerous Russian strikes on civilian infrastructure. As a result, civilian casualties in Ukraine continue to rise, further dimming prospects for peace talks. 

In the long term, the situation looks even bleaker. Russia insists on Ukraine’s effective capitulation, including recognition of annexed territories and abandonment of NATO aspirations. Washington, despite Trump’s talk of peace, offers no real compromises that could satisfy Moscow while preserving Kyiv’s dignity. Ukraine, meanwhile, categorically rejects any terms that could be seen as defeat. Zelensky and his team have repeatedly stated their readiness to continue resistance, even if U.S. support wanes. 

Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff in the Kremlin. Photo: Kristina Kormilitsyna / ANP / EPA

In parallel, Ukraine and the EU are exploring alternative cooperation paths independent of Washington’s stance. Recent weeks have seen intensified talks between Kyiv and European capitals on arms supplies and financial aid. However, the EU’s capabilities are limited, especially amid economic challenges in several member states. Additionally, internal EU disagreements over the extent of involvement in the conflict complicate a unified strategy.

Meanwhile, Russia continues to bolster its military capacity. Moscow is actively recruiting record numbers of contractors, increasing drone and ballistic missile production, and significantly expanding military support from North Korea. Russian officials increasingly mention new potential targets in Ukraine, focusing on Odesa. While not backed by concrete military plans, these ambitions signal that the Kremlin has no intention of stopping if opportunities arise.

What’s next? Strategic prospects and risks

For Moscow, the mere reduction of U.S. aid to Ukraine is a significant achievement. Though Trump had repeatedly insisted on limiting or shutting down all aid to Ukraine, and Pentagon did in fact stop all aid since February of 2025, there is a chance critical military supply would continue. However, given the nature of the way Trump’s administration operates, it is unclear whether the supply would be continues and the recently signed mineral did does not guarantee supply of arms. Nor it is clear whether Trump will reconsider plans to reduce its military presence in Europe, mentioned by Trump during and after his campaign, also play into the Kremlin’s hands, easing pressure on Russia’s western borders. 

If Moscow can maintain the current level of engagement with the U.S. without allowing Washington to resume active support for Ukraine or limiting it to symbolic levels, this will be seen as a success by the Kremlin. The military benefits of reduced arms supplies and limited intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Ukraine are already evident. Russia, having ramped up drone and missile production, is successfully breaching Ukrainian defenses, particularly in major cities where air defense shortages are acute. Trump’s refusal to supply new systems only intensifies pressure on Kyiv, enabling Moscow to escalate offensive operations. 

Military experts and economists estimate that Putin has a 12–18-month window to sustain current or slightly increased offensive tempos without needing to radically revise domestic policies. This period allows the Kremlin to maintain military pressure, seizing new territories it already considers its own by Russian law. Moreover, Putin’s ambitions will depend on battlefield successes. If Russian forces can secure new positions, the Kremlin may revisit plans to capture Odesa and establish a corridor to Transnistria, significantly altering the region’s strategic landscape. 

The current pace of military operations, though intense, is unlikely to shift Western public opinion enough to prompt leaders to significantly increase aid to Ukraine. This means Kyiv can, at best, hope to maintain current support levels, which are sufficient only for active defense at best. Under these conditions, Russia can gradually exhaust Ukrainian defenses, aiming for their eventual collapse. 

Realistic forecast

The likelihood of Trump adding a Russia conflict to his existing foreign policy challenges is still quite low. His administration is focused on domestic issues like economic recovery and migration policy, as well as countering China. In this context, the Kremlin’s goal of maintaining minimal dialogue with the U.S. to avoid escalation seems achievable. For Putin, this means continuing the current strategy, combining military pressure with diplomatic maneuvers to impose even less favorable ceasefire terms in the foreseeable future. 

Ultimately, despite loud statements and ‘reset’ attempts, there’s no real progress in resolving the conflict. Russia uses negotiations with the U.S. as a tool to achieve its goals, while Ukraine finds itself in a precarious position, reliant on limited Western support. Without drastic changes in Washington’s approach or a significant increase in European aid, Kyiv’s prospects remain grim, and Moscow’s window of opportunity stays open.