Trump’s Return and the Prospects for Peace in Ukraine: What Moscow’s Reaction Signals About U.S.-Russia Relations

As the dust settles from Donald Trump’s unexpected return to the White House, geopolitical analysts and global citizens alike are pondering a major question: Could Trump’s second term reshape the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict? The Kremlin has responded to Trump’s victory with a mix of guarded optimism and skepticism, emphasizing that any potential peace will be judged not by rhetoric but by tangible action. Here’s an in-depth look at how Trump’s re-election could impact one of the world’s most complex and contentious conflicts, as well as broader U.S.-Russia relations.

A Resurgence of an Unresolved Conflict

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine brought the world to a near-breaking point, echoing the tension of the Cold War’s most dangerous standoff: the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. With a major military incursion that reshaped borders and inflicted untold suffering, the conflict has pushed U.S.-Russia relations to unprecedented lows. Russia’s advances in Ukraine have cost it economically and diplomatically, yet the Kremlin maintains its goals in Ukraine are essential to its national interests.

Trump’s campaign was notable for its repeated promise to “end the Ukraine war swiftly,” a claim that resonated with some parts of the American electorate but remained vague in terms of strategy. In Moscow, these statements have prompted caution rather than hope, with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov suggesting that only “time will tell” if Trump’s words translate into action.

Russia’s View on Trump’s Potential as a Peacebroker

For Russian leadership, Trump’s return is a double-edged sword. While there’s a degree of cautious optimism, Russian officials view the U.S. as an adversary deeply involved in Ukraine’s defense. Peskov articulated this stance, calling the U.S. an “unfriendly country” in a conflict directly aimed at Russia.

Yet, some in Moscow see Trump’s business-oriented mindset as an opening for dialogue. Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, remarked that a Trump presidency might “reset” relations, creating space for improved diplomatic ties. However, Dmitriev’s position remains the minority; most officials, including former President Dmitry Medvedev, are less optimistic, suggesting that Trump’s fiscally conservative instincts might prioritize cutting foreign aid to Ukraine over any concerted peace effort.

Medvedev, now a senior security official, suggested that Trump’s “useful quality” from Moscow’s perspective is his potential unwillingness to spend “unnecessary” money on international conflicts, particularly those that don’t serve America’s core economic interests. Medvedev believes this inclination could limit U.S. military support for Ukraine, which relies heavily on American aid for defense. From Russia’s perspective, a reduction in U.S. support could weaken Ukraine’s resistance and potentially compel it to negotiate on terms more favorable to Moscow.

Ukraine’s Concerns and U.S. Support

Ukraine’s government and people remain heavily dependent on U.S. military and financial aid, viewing it as critical to their survival and resistance against Russia’s occupation. In Trump’s previous term, U.S. support for Ukraine was seen as inconsistent, with military assistance occasionally delayed or restricted. Ukrainian leaders worry that a renewed Trump administration may pursue a transactional approach, prioritizing what it perceives as American interests over steadfast support for Ukrainian sovereignty.

While Trump’s approach to foreign policy has often leaned isolationist, his perspective on Ukraine remains complex. He’s called for an “end” to the conflict, but his terms are unclear. For Ukraine, any peace arrangement that recognizes Russia’s claims to Crimea or the Donbas region would be unacceptable. President Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration have made it clear that territorial concessions to Russia would be seen as capitulation, a position widely supported by the Ukrainian public.

The Historic Lows of U.S.-Russia Relations

The tone of U.S.-Russia relations during the Ukraine war has been among the most acrimonious in modern history. Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have suggested that America’s “bipartisan anti-Russian stance” is a deliberate attempt to contain and weaken Russia. This perception has only deepened as U.S. economic sanctions, arms shipments, and diplomatic efforts aimed at isolating Moscow have intensified.

Both Putin and Russian Foreign Ministry representatives have insisted that their objectives in Ukraine are “unalterable.” For the Kremlin, this means securing the annexed regions and ensuring Russia’s long-term influence over Ukraine’s political future. While Russian diplomats may see an opportunity for a less interventionist U.S. approach under Trump, their public stance remains resolute: Moscow will pursue its goals regardless of American input.

Peskov has hinted that Russia will monitor the new U.S. administration’s actions closely, with any potential for de-escalation only being evaluated after Trump’s inauguration in January. This “wait-and-see” approach reveals the Kremlin’s reluctance to bank on any politician’s promises, a perspective shaped by decades of fluctuating relations with the West.

Trump’s Business Mindset and Foreign Aid: A Double-Edged Sword?

Trump’s approach to foreign policy often reflects his background in business, focusing on cost-saving measures and minimizing what he considers “wasteful” spending on foreign issues. Medvedev’s remarks underscore a belief within Russia that Trump’s reluctance to fund international conflicts might curb U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. For Ukraine, which has built its resistance on American-supplied resources, such a move would create enormous pressure on its government to seek alternative sources of aid or pursue peace terms.

However, Trump’s inclination to negotiate could also mean a fresh approach to diplomacy. Trump’s past meetings with global leaders, from North Korea’s Kim Jong Un to China’s Xi Jinping, have shown that he’s willing to engage directly, sometimes against conventional political wisdom. Whether this unconventional style will have any impact on Russia remains to be seen, but his openness to negotiation could theoretically pave the way for peace discussions, albeit on uncertain terms.

What Comes Next? The Inauguration and Beyond

While Trump’s campaign rhetoric hinted at a swift end to the Ukraine war, delivering on that promise is likely to be challenging. Russian advances in Ukraine continue, with Moscow controlling around a fifth of the country, including Crimea, the Donbas, and portions of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. Putin has indicated he’s willing to negotiate, but only if Russia’s territorial gains are acknowledged—a concession Ukraine is unlikely to make.

For now, the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine are in a holding pattern. Peskov and other Kremlin spokespeople have noted that any substantial shift in policy won’t come until the new administration is fully in place. In the interim, analysts anticipate increased military action in Ukraine as both sides attempt to strengthen their positions before any potential talks.

Final Thoughts

The re-emergence of Donald Trump on the global stage is unlikely to bring immediate peace to Ukraine. Russia’s leadership has expressed a mix of cautious optimism and skepticism, underscoring the idea that “actions speak louder than words.” For the people of Ukraine, Trump’s potential changes in foreign policy could have profound consequences, potentially shifting the balance of international support they receive. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s wait-and-see approach suggests that both Russia and the U.S. are preparing for a period of calculated diplomacy and strategic posturing.

Whether this renewed leadership brings any substantive changes to one of the most devastating conflicts in recent history remains unknown, but one thing is certain: the world is watching closely as January approaches, hoping for any sign of peace in a landscape darkened by years of conflict.