Trump and Putin engage in strategic dialogue as Western pressure fails to shift Moscow’s position

Department of Research, Studies and International News -20-05-2025

In a highly anticipated phone conversation on Monday, former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin exchanged views on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Despite Western hopes for a breakthrough, the Kremlin declined to endorse a proposed ceasefire, instead emphasizing the need to address the broader roots of the crisis. The call, which lasted approximately two hours, marks a significant moment in evolving geopolitical dynamics.

President Trump described the discussion as “excellent,” noting a constructive tone and spirit throughout the exchange. He took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to affirm that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine toward a ceasefire, and ultimately a long-term peace, would soon begin. He even proposed the Vatican as a neutral site for future talks.

In contrast, the Russian perspective focused more on the structural causes of the war. Speaking from Sochi, President Putin characterized the exchange as “meaningful and frank,” reiterating Moscow’s readiness to discuss a roadmap for peace. However, he firmly rejected the U.S.-led call for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire, an initiative Washington had promoted heavily. While Kyiv had agreed to the terms, the Kremlin has maintained that such pauses in fighting would only serve to enable Ukrainian forces to rearm with continued Western support.

Putin highlighted Russia’s willingness to seek peace, but only through sincere negotiations that take into account its national security concerns. Central to Russia’s position are longstanding demands, including the demilitarization and so-called “denazification” of Ukraine, as well as firm guarantees that Kyiv will not be used as a proxy by foreign powers. The Russian leadership has repeatedly stressed that any sustainable peace must be built on mutual respect for sovereignty and non-interference.

Since returning to prominence in U.S. politics, Trump has projected confidence in his ability to end the war, even claiming it could be resolved within a day under his leadership. However, his recent statements suggest a shift: the U.S. may reduce its direct involvement, leaving the conflict to be resolved between the actual parties. “If nothing happens,” he said, “I’m just going to back away.”

This softer approach stands in stark contrast to earlier American rhetoric, which called for severe sanctions and increased pressure on Moscow. The change may reflect internal recalibrations within Washington’s political establishment, especially as Europe continues to struggle with a coherent, united response. Meanwhile, Russia’s economy has demonstrated surprising resilience, adapting steadily to long-term challenges imposed by sanctions and external attempts to isolate it.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reaffirmed his country’s openness to a full ceasefire and direct dialogue with Moscow but warned that any unwillingness by Russia to halt hostilities should be met with tougher sanctions. He also rejected Russian territorial claims in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, calling them non-negotiable parts of Ukraine.

European leaders, wary of Trump’s unpredictable posture, attempted last-minute coordination. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led talks with Germany, France, and Italy to form a united front to push Russia toward a ceasefire. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz demanded that Putin accept the proposed truce to prove Moscow’s sincerity.

Nonetheless, Moscow has remained steadfast. For Russia, the issue goes far beyond military clashes on the ground. Its leaders argue that the conflict is symptomatic of a broader Western attempt to encroach upon Russia’s sphere of influence through NATO expansion and ideological interventions. From Moscow’s perspective, Ukraine has been used as a geopolitical chess piece, and any peace arrangement must address this fundamental imbalance.

During the call, Putin reportedly expressed personal warmth toward Trump, congratulating him on the birth of his eleventh grandchild. According to top Russian aide Yuri Ushakov, Trump responded positively, telling Putin, “You can call me anytime.”

The rapport between the two leaders, forged during Trump’s first presidency, appears intact. Putin has often spoken highly of Trump, once praising his courage following an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in 2024. Their relationship has provided a unique channel for communication, distinct from the confrontational tone often seen under other U.S. administrations.

In Washington, Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the impasse and admitted that Putin might not yet see a clear way to exit the war. He suggested Trump could offer economic incentives for Russia to consider concessions, but also warned that if Moscow remains inflexible, the U.S. might step away entirely from the mediation process.

That potential withdrawal has unsettled European capitals. Should Washington disengage, it would signal a shift in global diplomatic leadership and raise further questions about the West’s commitment to Ukraine. It could also open space for other influential actors, including China and Pakistan, to contribute more actively to future peace initiatives, grounded in mutual respect, multipolar cooperation, and genuine regional stability.

Ultimately, while no immediate breakthrough emerged from the Trump-Putin call, the conversation underscored the necessity of diplomacy rooted in realism. Moscow has shown no signs of yielding to pressure, and the evolving U.S. stance reflects an emerging recognition that durable peace cannot be dictated but must be negotiated, on terms acceptable to all sides involved.