October 2025 witnessed contradictory developments between efforts to end the Russian-Ukrainian war and continued military support for Ukraine. At the forefront of the peace efforts was a phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, alongside a positive meeting between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. Additional diplomatic moves included a call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his U.S. counterpart Marco Rubio, and Putin’s decision to send his special envoy to the United States Kirill Dmitriev to discuss potential peace arrangements. Meanwhile, NATO intensified its military support for Ukraine, and the European Union threatened to assist Kyiv “by all means necessary.”
The Trump-Putin call resulted in an agreement to hold a summit in Budapest, Hungary. However, this development quickly lost momentum after Trump announced the cancellation of the planned meeting, citing his belief that no positive outcome would be achieved.
In this paper, I reviewed the latest developments in the Russian-Ukrainian war and explored the prospects for peace between the two countries.
I- Trump’s Proposals for Ending the War
1. Presidential Diplomacy
Since his inauguration, President Trump has relied heavily on his personal relationship with Putin to achieve a breakthrough in the conflict. During his campaign, he frequently asserted that he could “end the war within days.” Reality, however, proved far more complex.
Russia seeks to end the war on the basis of the current battlefield realities, with guarantees that Ukraine will not pursue NATO membership, a halt to the supply of long-range weapons, and the rejection of any international security guarantees that could lead to peacekeeping or U.S. troop deployment in conflict zones.
Conversely, Ukraine demands the restoration of its territories occupied by Russia and the establishment of binding security guarantees ensuring Moscow’s adherence to any peace agreement.
Trump thus finds himself trapped between two obstinate parties. He also opposes the idea of binding security guarantees, as this would commit Washington to confront Russia in the event of violations. Despite these challenges, Trump continues to push for a settlement. A proposed peace summit in Budapest was ultimately canceled at the last moment.
2. Economic Sanctions
On October 22, 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on the Russian oil companies Rosneft Oil Company and Lukoil OAO, citing Moscow’s failure to take positive steps toward peace. The United States vowed to “maintain pressure until Russia negotiates an end to the war.”
Trump also declared that he would pressure major importers of Russian energy, notably China and India. President Zelensky urged Trump to convince Chinese President Xi Jinping to reduce Beijing’s support for Moscow—an outcome seen as unlikely given the strong Sino-Russian ties and their mutual distrust of Washington and liberal international institutions.
Meanwhile, the European Union has threatened to use frozen Russian assets, estimated between $210–230 billion, to support Ukraine. The move has sparked heated debate within the EU, and Moscow has warned of retaliation should it proceed.
3. Military Support for Ukraine
The possibility of the U.S. directly entering the war remains remote. Trump previously dismissed the conflict as “Biden’s war,” calling it a strategic blunder for encouraging Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership without foreseeing Moscow’s aggressive response.
During his White House meeting with Trump, President Zelensky reportedly proposed a drone-for-missile exchange—offering Ukrainian drones in return for American Tomahawk missiles. Trump declined, stating it was “too early to supply Ukraine with Tomahawks,” emphasizing instead his focus on a peace deal with Russia.
Zelensky’s public request may have been a tactical move to strengthen Kyiv’s hand at the negotiating table and send a message that Washington possesses considerable military leverage against Moscow.
II. Obstacles to Ending the War
1. The Russian Realist Mindset
Russia continues to launch intensive strikes on Ukraine, bolstered by military support from North Korea and China—its most reliable allies—and its own robust military capabilities. Russia now controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory, nearing a quarter of the country’s total area. Current operations are concentrated in Pokrovsk in the Donetsk region, aimed at creating a more advantageous military reality on the ground.
Russia has controlled Crimea since 2014, effectively encircling Ukraine and confining its access to the Black Sea to the port of Odesa. The 2010 Kharkiv Pact, which extended Russia’s lease on the Sevastopol naval base, has thus become a de facto reality, allowing Moscow strategic access to the Mediterranean through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.
Following the 2022 invasion, Russia also seized Kherson, which supplies Crimea with water from the Dnieper River, further consolidating its advantage. Consequently, Moscow wields the stronger bargaining position, having largely met its strategic objectives despite heavy sanctions and international isolation.
During Putin phone call with Trump, he demanded that Ukraine relinquish the Donetsk region entirely in exchange for a partial Russian withdrawal from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Given that Donetsk and Luhansk together account for roughly a quarter of Ukraine’s GDP, Kyiv refuses to accept these terms, viewing them as tantamount to surrender and territorial amputation.
2. The End of Ukrainian Neutrality
Ukraine’s westward pivot after the 2014 Euromaidan protests and the fall of President Yanukovych marked a turning point that made conflict with Russia almost inevitable. Recognizing Ukraine’s irreversible alignment with the EU and NATO, Moscow swiftly annexed Crimea, igniting an armed separatist uprising in Donetsk and Luhansk that eventually evolved into the 2022 full-scale invasion.
Russia now seeks to drain Ukraine’s military capacity to deter future NATO cooperation, though it has shown limited openness to a partnership framework between Kyiv and Brussels, but short of NATO membership, it is a red line for Russia.
From this perspective, Russia views Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the European Union as a strategic threat to Moscow, which does not trust NATO and perceives its gradual expansion toward the territories of the former Soviet Union as an attempt to encircle Russia and prevent any revival of its influence. This reflects the Russian mindset regarding the crisis, as the ongoing war has deep historical and ideological dimensions that cannot be overlooked. By contrast, a neutral Ukraine would pose no threat to Moscow.
III. Future Scenarios
Direct wars are inherently unpredictable, especially between heavily armed powers. Russia’s extensive arsenal allows it to sustain the conflict for years, while Ukraine has benefited from U.S. and European support since the Biden administration, including advanced weaponry and political backing.
In turn, Moscow has deepened its ties with China, North Korea, India, and Central Asian nations, and strengthened outreach to the Global South—notably Africa and Latin America (especially Brazil, a BRICS member)—to offset Western sanctions.
Within this context, three main scenarios emerge for the war’s trajectory:
Scenario 1: Ceasefire and Peace Agreement (Most Realistic)
A ceasefire could be achieved based on current frontlines, recognizing Russian control over Donbas and Crimea, provided Ukraine agrees. Though this would implicitly acknowledge Ukrainian defeat, it remains the most pragmatic solution.
Under Trump, the U.S. has no intention of providing large-scale military aid like the Biden administration did, nor of engaging in the war directly.
Europe, meanwhile, lacks the capacity to confront Russia alone. The continent has long relied on the U.S. for defense, and while plans for an independent European army are under discussion, such a project will take years to materialize.
According to Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, a diplomatic resolution may soon be within reach. Kyiv, however, remains skeptical of Moscow’s intentions. Nonetheless, diplomacy remains the most viable and realistic path to ending the war.
Scenario 2: Continuation of the War (Status Quo)
Various actors benefit from prolonging the conflict. U.S. defense contractors and arms industry lobbyists profit from rising global demand for weapons. These groups, along with pro-Ukraine advocates, have a vested interest—albeit unspoken—in sustaining the war until Kyiv can alter the battlefield balance.
Russia still possesses massive military capabilities that enable it to push for greater territorial gains, especially amid reduced U.S. military involvement and European fatigue. Yet, a decisive victory remains unlikely. Capturing more Ukrainian territory would require enormous effort given Europe’s ongoing support for Kyiv and renewed U.S. pressure on Putin after detecting his strategy of prolonged attrition.
Russia may wish to continue the war until it faces serious Western resolve, which could finally bring it to the negotiating table. Until then, battles rage on across Kharkiv, Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kherson.
Scenario 3: Direct U.S. or NATO Intervention (Currently Unlikely)
This scenario is the least probable. Guided by his “America First” and “Make America Great Again” doctrines, Trump is unlikely to commit to a direct war with Russia. His business-minded pragmatism discourages military adventurism.
Trump even rebuked Zelensky in February 2025, warning him against “gambling with World War III.” He has consistently criticized Biden for encouraging Ukraine’s NATO ambitions. Upon taking office, Trump portrayed himself as a “deal-maker” and “man of peace,” emphasizing his record of ending wars rather than starting them.
He even rebranded the Department of Defense as the “Department of War” to underscore his belief in peace through strength. His focus now lies in recouping U.S. expenditures under Biden and ending the conflict “at any cost.”
The U.S. continues to refrain from supplying Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv and remains cautious to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. Ukraine has meanwhile requested long-range missiles from France, drawing Russian warnings and threats of retaliation.
Conclusion
Trump’s current stance toward the Russian-Ukrainian war differs markedly from his earlier optimism. His latest meeting with Zelensky at the White House revealed his growing awareness of the conflict’s complexity and Putin’s unwavering conditions for peace.
Frustrated, Trump has imposed new economic sanctions on Russian oil firms, while Washington struggles to persuade Kyiv to accept compromise. Zelensky, in turn, continues to leverage every political channel for Western support.
Europe’s assistance to Ukraine remains extensive but insufficient without American weight. The war continues to evolve through shifting dynamics, as the fluid battlefield reality leaves room for sudden and unpredictable change.
