Trump’s Summits Prompt Optimism for a Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire amid Diplomatic Uncertainties

Russian forces continue a highly attritional deployment of infantry against well-defended Ukrainian positions. Neither side can use armored vehicles, mechanized units, or air support to much effect to assist their infantry due to the pervasive and destructive effectiveness of drones against vehicles and surface-to-air missiles against aircraft.  

Both sides continue to conduct near-daily long-range missile and drone strikes. However, despite some high-profile successes and both sides developing the number and complexity of their weapons, neither side is likely to achieve a decisive military advantage through these strikes. Despite an ever-tightening Western sanctions regime, Moscow is showing that it can sustain its military efforts through its war economy and hydrocarbon exports to third parties. 

Against this backdrop of little military change and no indication of any imminent change in the geostrategic situation, Trump has held two summits to start a peace process. While details of the summits' outcomes remain scarce, all sides can claim some benefits, even if the relief may be temporary. Putin will be relieved that Trump has refrained from increasing sanctions against Russia and that his instinct is more likely to reduce them at the earliest opportunity. However, Russia's demands for maximal Ukrainian territorial concessions have likely been rejected by Washington. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will probably be relieved that the Aug. 15 Alaska Summit did not result in a fait accompli deal that would advantage Russia. Trump will likely be attracted by the prospect of increased arms sales to Ukraine, funded by European nations, on top of the existing US-Ukraine minerals deal.

The united front presented by the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, and the UK, together with the heads of NATO and the European Commission at the Aug. 18 summit in Washington also reinforced the continent's commitment to providing long-term security guarantees to Ukraine and likely warned of the risks of a short-term ceasefire that might compromise the long-term peace. However, Trump has seemingly agreed with the Russian position that a peace deal should be reached absent a temporary ceasefire. Therefore, in the coming days, diplomatic activity will likely focus on discussions around territory swaps, security guarantees, and progress toward a further summit. 

Russia's declared annexation of the entirety of Ukraine's Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions in 2022 will almost certainly constrain Moscow's negotiating position. Meanwhile, officials in Kyiv will likely distrust any ceasefire, predicting that the Russian leadership will strive to capture these territories in future military actions regardless of any peace treaty.

Senior US officials have failed to clarify Trump's initial proposals around territory swaps. Putin's demands for Ukrainian territory likely include at least the entirety of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, as well as the currently occupied areas of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. In return, Russian forces may be prepared to withdraw from the occupied areas of the Kharkiv and Sumy regions. However, Zelenskyy has rejected ceding territory to Moscow because of a perception that doing so would effectively condone, and thereby legitimize, Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukrainian land. 

While agreement details remain elusive, the US and Russian positions may be closer than predicted before the Alaska Summit. Analyzing the various statements made so far, a security guarantee force would likely be made up of 10,000-20,000 troops from the "coalition of the willing" group of nations that have pledged support for bolstering Ukrainian defenses against Russia. It would support Ukrainian forces in non-offensive roles, such as training and ordnance disposal, and monitoring any ceasefire conditions. The US would not deploy ground troops into Ukraine but would likely provide military "enablers," such as intelligence, air-to-air refueling, and possibly even combat aircraft for airspace policing. European leaders have requested a US "backstop," which may be provided as formalized, hardened sanctions rather than a direct military response. However, subsequent statements by Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, appear to reject the European leaders' proposals. 

Trump remains actively engaged in bringing about a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The US president will probably push for additional summits, including between Putin and Zelenskyy. However, Putin will likely push back against a bilateral meeting as this would recognize Zelenskyy as Ukraine's legitimate leader, which is anathema to Russia's political and media classes. However, Putin may attend a trilateral meeting including Trump, as he may see greater opportunities to advance the Russian position.

An interim step to build confidence ahead of further negotiations would be an "air ceasefire," where both sides agree to cease drone and missile strikes against targets in each other's territory. Both sides would likely benefit from such a deal, although it would allow them to build up stocks of offensive and defensive weapons that may be used in future escalations. Kyiv would welcome a reduction in the threat against its civilian infrastructure, particularly as it encourages its diaspora to return home. 

The recent summits and upcoming rounds of diplomatic activity are unlikely to change the long-term scenarios. While Trump remains engaged in any conflict resolution, there is a chance of a peace settlement because only the US has the military and economic power to swing the balance.  

Having failed in his strategic goal to establish a neutral Ukraine with a malleable client leader in power, Putin may now also recognize the impossibility of militarily seizing the four Russian-claimed Ukrainian regions. But Ukrainian forces cannot realistically displace the Russian occupation back to the 1991 or even 2014 lines of control. Trump’s initiatives may encourage Putin to adapt his objectives for the coming years, commit to a peace process while maintaining low-level hybrid hostilities with Ukraine and the EU, and benefit from the likely rapid reduction in US sanctions. Russian technocrats and oligarchs will likely encourage Putin to work toward such a strategy. This may result in a theoretically temporary but effectively permanent partition of Ukraine.  

An alternative scenario sees Trump becoming impatient with slow progress and threatening increased sanctions against Moscow and/or a withdrawal of military support for Kyiv. However, both Putin and Zelenskyy would likely call Trump’s bluff in this scenario. Both presidents have led their countries through the conflict this far and will likely prioritize their own strategic objectives over such threats, however exigent. A third possible scenario would be that the US administration loses interest completely in resolving the conflict, and—without US influence—the war continues. Other less-likely scenarios include sudden economic or societal collapse, regime change, or some unpredictable military development in either country.

Learn more about leveraging our industry-leading regional and subject matter experts for intelligence that helps your organization stay ahead of risks to your people and operations.