Ukraine’s Peace Plans and Trump’s Russia Dilemma: Why the War Remains Unresolved

Introduction

More than three years into the Russia–Ukraine war, the question many people continue to ask is simple: why has the conflict not been settled? Despite repeated peace proposals, diplomatic efforts, and leadership changes across several countries, the fighting continues. Ukraine has outlined multiple peace frameworks, while political figures in the United States, including former President Donald Trump, have suggested alternative approaches. Yet fundamental differences remain, particularly between Ukraine and Russia.

This article explores Ukraine’s peace plans, Trump’s stated position on the conflict, and the core disagreements that have prevented a lasting settlement. Rather than focusing on headlines or speculation, it looks at the structural, political, and strategic realities that shape the war.

Background: How the Conflict Reached Its Current Stage

The Russia–Ukraine war did not begin suddenly. Its roots trace back years, involving disputes over territory, political alignment, and regional security. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine escalated an already tense relationship and turned a regional conflict into a major international crisis.

Since then, Ukraine has sought military, economic, and diplomatic support from Western allies, while Russia has framed the war as a matter of national security and regional influence. These competing narratives continue to define the conflict and influence every attempt at negotiation.

Ukraine’s Peace Plan: What Kyiv Is Asking For

Ukraine’s peace proposals, often referred to as a “peace formula,” are built around several key principles. At the center is the demand for full territorial integrity. Ukraine insists that any settlement must include the return of all occupied territories, including Crimea and regions seized since 2022.

Another core element is security guarantees. Ukrainian leaders argue that without strong and enforceable guarantees, any ceasefire would merely pause the conflict rather than resolve it. Past agreements, such as the Minsk accords, failed in part because they lacked effective enforcement mechanisms.

Ukraine’s plan also emphasizes accountability. Kyiv has called for mechanisms to address war-related damage, civilian harm, and violations of international law. From Ukraine’s perspective, peace without accountability would leave the underlying causes of the war unresolved.

Russia’s Position: Strategic Control and Recognition

Russia’s position differs sharply. Moscow has consistently sought recognition of its control over certain territories and has framed its actions as defensive measures against Western expansion. From Russia’s viewpoint, territorial concessions by Ukraine are not negotiable starting points but essential outcomes.

Russia has also resisted international frameworks that could limit its military or political autonomy. Security arrangements proposed by Ukraine and its allies are often seen in Moscow as threats rather than safeguards.

These positions create a basic problem: both sides view compromise as a loss of long-term security rather than a path to stability.

Donald Trump’s Approach to the Conflict

Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that, if returned to office, he could help bring the war to an end quickly. His comments suggest a preference for direct negotiation and reduced U.S. involvement in prolonged conflicts.

However, Trump has not publicly endorsed Ukraine’s full peace plan. His statements indicate skepticism toward extended military aid and a belief that pressure on both sides could lead to a deal. This approach contrasts with the current U.S. policy, which emphasizes sustained support for Ukraine.

Trump’s position reflects a broader debate within American politics: whether continued involvement strengthens global stability or deepens international divisions.

Fundamental Differences Between Trump and Russia

Despite occasional claims that Trump might have a better relationship with Russia, fundamental differences remain. Trump’s “America First” approach prioritizes U.S. interests over alliance commitments, while Russia seeks strategic influence beyond its borders.

Trump has shown willingness to engage in unconventional diplomacy, but this does not automatically align with Russian goals. Russia seeks formal recognition of territorial changes and long-term security concessions from the West, outcomes that would be politically difficult for any U.S. leader to support openly.

As a result, even a change in U.S. leadership would not eliminate the structural disagreements at the heart of the conflict.

Why the War Has Not Been Settled

The lack of settlement is not due to a single failure but a combination of unresolved issues.

First, there is no shared definition of peace. For Ukraine, peace means restored sovereignty. For Russia, it means strategic control and reduced Western influence. These goals are not easily reconciled.

Second, trust is extremely limited. Years of broken agreements and ongoing fighting have made both sides skeptical of ceasefires or interim solutions.

Third, international involvement complicates negotiations. NATO countries, the European Union, and other global actors have their own security concerns, which influence the options available to both Ukraine and Russia.

The Role of Military Reality

Peace talks are often shaped by conditions on the ground. Neither side has achieved a decisive outcome that would force the other into concessions. As long as both believe they can improve their position militarily, incentives to compromise remain weak.

Ukraine relies on continued external support, while Russia depends on its ability to sustain resources and domestic backing. This balance creates a prolonged stalemate rather than a clear path to resolution.

Economic and Social Costs

The human and economic costs of the war are substantial. Ukraine has faced widespread infrastructure damage, displacement, and economic strain. Russia has experienced sanctions, trade disruptions, and long-term economic challenges.

Despite these costs, leadership on both sides continues to frame the conflict as necessary. This narrative reduces domestic pressure for compromise and allows the war to continue despite mounting losses.

Public Expectations and Political Messaging

Public opinion also plays a role. Ukrainian leaders must demonstrate resolve to maintain national unity, while Russian leadership relies on narratives of resistance and security.

In the United States, political debate shapes how the conflict is discussed. Trump’s comments resonate with voters concerned about domestic priorities, while others argue that global engagement is essential to long-term stability.

These competing messages influence policy decisions and limit the flexibility of negotiators.

What a Realistic Settlement Would Require

A realistic settlement would require shifts on several fronts. Ukraine would need credible, enforceable security guarantees. Russia would need assurances that its core security concerns are addressed without undermining international law.

External actors would need to agree on a unified framework rather than competing strategies. Most importantly, all parties would need to accept that a sustainable peace may look different from their ideal outcomes.

At present, these conditions are not fully in place.

Conclusion

The war between Ukraine and Russia remains unresolved because it is driven by deep, structural disagreements rather than short-term misunderstandings. Ukraine’s peace plans emphasize sovereignty and security, while Russia’s position prioritizes control and strategic influence. Donald Trump’s approach highlights alternative thinking in U.S. politics but does not remove the core obstacles to settlement.

Until there is a shared understanding of what peace means and how it can be guaranteed, diplomatic efforts are likely to remain limited. The conflict continues not for lack of proposals, but because the underlying differences have yet to be bridged.