Putin Weighs Risks of U.S. Readiness to Move on From Stalled Peace Efforts in Ukraine

Executive Summary:

• The Kremlin continues to delay genuine peace talks with Ukraine—relying on distractions and temporary ceasefires to extract concessions while avoiding meaningful compromise—as the United States signals its readiness to move on from stalled peace efforts.
• European efforts to step up defense commitments and coordinate with the United States contradict Kremlin narratives of Western disunity and threaten Russia’s hopes of dividing the transatlantic alliance.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempts to redirect diplomatic focus toward the Middle East and reset relations with the Trump administration only underscore the deadlock created by his war against Ukraine.

The Kremlin has used delays and distractions to gain all the time and concessions available to it before seriously engaging in peace talks, or at least a genuine pause, in its war against Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin will soon be compelled to admit that procrastination works fine until it does not. Putin cannot fail to recognize the essential final warning by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio about readiness to move on to other priorities if the efforts at making a peace deal remain deadlocked (Forbes.ru, April 18). U.S. President Donald Trump has confirmed that the United States will abandon efforts to make a peace deal without setting a specific deadline (Kommersant, April 18).

Putin’s surprise announcement of the 32-hour ceasefire over the Easter weekend was clearly an attempt to demonstrate flexibility and openness to compromises in response to the U.S. administration’s readiness to abandon peace talk efforts. Putin’s announcement of the so-called “humanitarian” initiative was abrupt after a week of brutal missile attacks, including a strike by three Iskander-M on Kharkiv last Friday, and a testimony of his cruel hypocrisy (RBC-Ukraine, April 18; Izvestiya, April 19). Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reported that throughout Easter Sunday, Russia violated its own ceasefire promises 2,935 times (X/@ZelenskyyUa, April 20). Many minor clashes inevitably punctured the truce, but the appeal of Zelenskyy to extend it for 30 days was in vain (RBC, April 19). After weeks of posturing and asserting demands for Ukraine’s subjugation, Putin finds his space for political maneuvering restricted by too many declarations of intent for achieving a clear victory (Novaya Gazeta Europe, April 18; Kommersant, April 19). He also struggles to comprehend how exactly the pivotal counterpart, the United States, plans to move on, and in what direction.

The first reaction in Russian state media to the U.S. confirmation of readiness to quit the peace-making work was a portrayal of success in having prolonged the war against Ukraine for so long that the United States now needs to focus on other priorities (RIA Novosti, April 19). The presumption was that Russia’s hands would now be free to deliver a crushing defeat to Ukraine, weakened and demoralized by the cancellation of U.S. support (TopWar.ru, April 18). Characteristically, seasoned Russian state media pundits have hardly issued any criticism of U.S. policymaking, emphasizing instead the centrality and indispensability of the United States’ role in the coalition backing Ukraine (RIAC, April 18). The key is obviously taken from the official assertion that Trump understands the deeper causes of the long war, unlike most Western politicians and even some of his own aids (Rossiiskaya gazeta, April 19).

The prevalent expectation in Russian assessments is that the United States is preparing to walk away not just from the peace talks but from all engagements with the war, leaving Europe to carry the burden of keeping Ukraine in the fight (Izvestiya, April 18). The European resolve to strengthen collective capacity for deterring Russia and arming Ukraine is evaluated skeptically and predicted to crumble under the impact of the new U.S. tariffs on the European Union (Nezavisimaya gazeta, April 16). Russian state disparagement of the European Union’s support for Ukraine reached new levels in an article published on the official website of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which claims that Moscow and Washington are again—as in the Second World War—standing together against “Euro-fascism” (SVR, April 16; Meduza, April 17).

Russian commentators tend to omit the simple fact that Rubio’s remark came after a series of meetings in Paris with high-level officials from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine, in which good progress was achieved in turning the U.S. push for ending the war into a multilateral effort. A follow-up meeting is scheduled for this week in London (Current time, April 18; NV.ua, April 20; X/@ZelenskyyUa, April 21). The emphasis on the depth of disagreements between the United States and the European Union conveniently hides the reality that they remain negotiable. This was most recently demonstrated by  Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s visit to Washington, D.C., during which she and Trump engaged in a friendly and positive discussion about defense cooperation and ending Russia’s war against Ukraine (The White House; Italian Government, April 17; Novaya Gazeta Europe, April 18). Moscow needs to worry about the impact of growing U.S. disappointment in the peace-making efforts as well as the European determination to invest in upgrading its defense-industrial base and integrating it with the Ukrainian “steel porcupine” (Re: Russia, April 14). These worries inform the critical tone in Russian media toward the new German government under Chancellor Friedrich Merz and condemnation of his plans for deploying a European peace-supporting force in Ukraine (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, April 15; The Insider, April 18).

Putin appears to be attempting to anticipate where exactly the Trump administration is likely to move on from pursuing peace talks, or whether it will remain connected to this task in some form. The obvious direction of U.S. interest is the Middle East, and Moscow is monitoring carefully the course of newly-launched talks between the United States and Iran (Izvestiya, April 20). Between the first round of these talks in Oman and the second one in Rome, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi found time for a trip to Moscow, where he was granted an audience with Putin (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, April 18). The Kremlin appears eager to demonstrate its ability to usefully contribute to a new deal on the Iranian nuclear program, even if the “patriotic” Russian commentators predict a new spike of regional tensions (TopWar.ru, April 17). Putin likely finds it essential to show that Russia’s strategic partnership is not narrowly focused on Iran. The meeting with the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, in the Kremlin appears poised to demonstrate the spread of Putin’s networks, even if few practical results are achieved (President of Russia; Kommersant, April 17).

The Kremlin is attempting to persuade the Trump administration to forget about a peace deal in Ukraine while also cultivating U.S.-Russia conversations on other matters. These two aims are not easily compatible. Russia, therefore, appears to be left in the limbo of an unwinnable war. Putin counts, nevertheless, both on the presumed rapport with Trump and on the newly-gained trust and potential business opportunities with Steven Witkoff, Trump’s key negotiator (Izvestiya, April 15). What Putin needs to escape the dead-end set by his own intransigence is to pin the blame for the failure of truce-making on Zelenskyy, who is aware of this risk and continues to message his readiness for a long ceasefire with no prohibitive conditions (President of Ukraine, April 14).

Russia’s war against Ukraine has become a natural environment for Putin’s regime to survive. This reality cannot be reconciled with the U.S. administration’s aim to end the senseless war, or with the Ukrainian and European desire for a stable and just peace, or with the longing for a normal life among the majority of Russians. The longer Putin ties his rule to this unwinnable war, the more inevitable it becomes that both will collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.