Trump’s new peace push: Can Moscow and Kyiv bridge the gap?

As the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fifth year, the administration of US President Donald Trump has launched a new diplomatic effort aimed at ending the conflict. The visits of US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law and active participant in the diplomatic process, Jared Kushner, first to Moscow and then to Kyiv, indicate Washington’s intention to revive negotiations. However, the picture that has emerged following these visits suggests that, even if the diplomatic channel is reopened, a swift end to the war still appears unlikely.

Witkoff and Kushner met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on September 5, with the meeting lasting more than three hours. Kremlin representatives described the talks as “constructive” and “useful.” The US side, meanwhile, said that the meeting focused on discussing the next steps toward ending the war. However, no specific agreement or broad ceasefire was announced following the talks.

This distinction is important because there is a significant difference between the resumption of diplomatic negotiations and an actual compromise between the parties. While the restoration of dialogue between Moscow and Washington is politically significant in itself, the central question is what concessions Russia is prepared to make in order to end the war and how far the United States can accommodate those demands.

Has Moscow’s position changed?

At this stage, there are no clear signs of a fundamental change in Russia’s basic position. The Kremlin continues to insist that the “root causes” of the war must be addressed, while Moscow has not indicated that it is prepared to abandon its strategic objectives.

Russian presidential adviser Yuri Ushakov said after the meeting with Witkoff and Kushner that Putin had expressed confidence that Russia would achieve its goals.

Moscow’s demands center on territorial concessions from Ukraine, Ukraine’s refusal to join NATO, and consideration of Russia’s security concerns regarding Ukraine’s future military and political status. These issues are extremely sensitive for Kyiv. Recognizing territorial changes or restricting Ukraine’s future security options would amount to fundamental concessions concerning the outcome of the war.

Therefore, describing the meeting with Putin as “constructive” does not necessarily mean that Moscow is ready to compromise. On the contrary, Russian diplomacy may be using the negotiations primarily to communicate its position directly to the United States rather than to signal a change in that position.

Kyiv’s red lines

Witkoff and Kushner’s visit to Kyiv was at least as important for Washington as their trip to Moscow. The meeting between the US representatives and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky demonstrated, first and foremost, that Washington does not intend to build the peace process solely through negotiations with Moscow.

Kyiv’s main demands include security guarantees, the strengthening of air defense capabilities, and a resolution of the territorial issue that takes Ukraine’s sovereignty into account. Zelensky also emphasized the urgent need for energy infrastructure support and air defense systems ahead of the coming winter. Reports indicate that a possible “winter package” was also discussed during the talks with US representatives.

This is where the central paradox becomes apparent: Ukraine wants to end the war but fears that a ceasefire without reliable security guarantees could give Russia an opportunity to rebuild its military capabilities and resume the conflict at a later stage. Moscow, by contrast, wants the key political and territorial issues to be resolved before a ceasefire is established.

Thus, a fundamental difference remains between the two sides’ approaches to negotiations. Russia wants to secure political results first, while Ukraine seeks to establish a lasting ceasefire accompanied by credible security mechanisms.

The Main problem with Trump’s plan

The greatest advantage of Donald Trump’s peace initiative is his political determination. Washington wants negotiations to produce results rather than allow the war to continue indefinitely, and to that end, Trump is sending high-level representatives to engage directly with both Putin and Zelensky.

However, Trump faces three major challenges.

First, Moscow still considers its position on the battlefield to be strong. If Russia does not believe that its military and economic resources have been exhausted, its incentive to make major concessions at the negotiating table will remain limited.

Second, Ukraine does not appear ready to surrender part of its territory and accept vague or insufficient guarantees on security. This is an issue that concerns not only the Zelensky government but also the future of Ukrainian society and the country’s long-term national security.

Third, there is the European factor. The outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war will not depend solely on an agreement reached between Moscow, Kyiv, and Washington. European countries play a significant role in Ukraine’s security, financing, and military support. Therefore, it will be difficult for any peace mechanism to establish long-term stability without European participation and support.

Why is diplomacy more important now?

Despite all these difficulties, it would be premature to describe the mission of Witkoff and Kushner as a failure. The resumption of a negotiation process that had been stalled for a considerable period is itself significant.

On September 7, the Kremlin said it did not rule out the resumption of trilateral talks involving the United States and Ukraine. Although Moscow said it was too early to determine a specific date or location for such negotiations, the statement indicates that the diplomatic channel has not been completely closed.

At the same time, the continuation of military operations alongside the renewed diplomatic efforts demonstrates just how fragile the process remains. Immediately after the US representatives’ visit to Kyiv, Russia launched a large-scale missile and drone attack on the capital. The September 8 attack killed at least two people and injured 10 others.

These attacks once again highlight the central challenge facing the diplomatic process: even while negotiations are taking place, the parties may continue to view military pressure as a means of strengthening their positions at the negotiating table.

Can Trump achieve peace?

Given the current circumstances, it is difficult to assess the probability of Trump securing a comprehensive peace agreement in the short term as particularly high. A more realistic scenario would be a phased diplomatic process.

During the first phase, the parties could seek to establish a limited ceasefire, particularly by halting attacks on energy infrastructure, cities, and civilian facilities. The second phase could focus on prisoner exchanges, humanitarian issues, and the expansion of communication channels between the parties. At a later stage, more difficult issues—including territorial status, security guarantees, Ukraine’s future military and political status, and sanctions against Russia—could be brought to the negotiating table.

Such an approach could also provide the Trump administration with a political advantage. Even if Washington is unable to secure a final peace agreement immediately, a series of phased agreements would allow the administration to demonstrate that a process aimed at stopping the war has begun.

However, achieving this would require the United States to use genuine diplomatic leverage over both Moscow and Kyiv. If Washington were to place pressure only on Ukraine, the peace process could become unbalanced while Russia would have little incentive to make concessions. Conversely, if the United States also demanded concrete steps from Russia, the credibility and balance of the negotiations could increase.

Conclusion

The mission of Witkoff and Kushner to Moscow and Kyiv did not result in an immediate end to the Russia-Ukraine war. Nevertheless, the visits are significant because they have helped reactivate a diplomatic mechanism that had been weakening for some time. The positions of Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart, while the recent military attacks clearly demonstrate the depth of the remaining disagreements.

The key issue is not simply how attractive Trump’s peace plan may appear on paper, but what mechanism he can use to reconcile the conflicting demands of Russia and Ukraine. For Putin, the central issues are recognition of Russia’s strategic objectives and security requirements. For Kyiv, the priorities are sovereignty, territorial integrity, and credible guarantees for its future security.

A “quick peace” appears impossible without addressing these fundamental contradictions. Therefore, the visits of Witkoff and Kushner should be viewed not as a final result, but as the beginning of a new stage in the diplomatic process.

Under the current circumstances, the most realistic prospect is not an immediate comprehensive peace agreement, but first a limited ceasefire and confidence-building measures, followed by phased negotiations aimed at reaching a political settlement. If Washington can establish a balanced framework that requires both Moscow and Kyiv to make concessions and undertake concrete commitments, Trump’s initiative could have a chance of producing results.

Otherwise, the mission of Witkoff and Kushner could ultimately end without significantly changing the course of the war, much like previous diplomatic efforts.

The fundamental question, therefore, is no longer simply, “Does Trump want peace?” The more important question is whether Washington has sufficient leverage to simultaneously persuade Moscow to make genuine concessions and Kyiv to accept painful compromises.

At present, there is insufficient reason to answer that question with a definite “yes.” The new missile strikes on Kyiv following the Moscow and Kyiv missions further demonstrate that serious obstacles remain on the path to diplomacy and that the gap between the parties’ positions is still substantial.

Stabil.Az