Donald Trump’s efforts to bring peace to Ukraine have not led to any concrete results so far. Meanwhile, the developments of May 2025—in particular, the telephone conversation between Presidents Trump and Putin and the refusal to strengthen sanctions against Russia—give reason to suggest that the United States will switch to a strategy of ‘routinising’ the war in Ukraine. [1]
Donald Trump has passed the benchmark of his first 100 days in office with a 41% approval rating. This figure may be attributed to a de facto absence of any domestic or foreign policy “victories.” Rather, it is the opposite: the “egg shortage” in the US, the tariff wars, and lack of real progress in negotiations on the Russian-Ukrainian war have seriously damaged the reputation of the egocentric politician. Ahead of the 100-day deadline, the US president clung to an opportunity to “sell” one victory to his voters—a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia was supposed to be his personal triumph.
Trump’s disappointment grew gradually as he began to realise the complexity and depth of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Simple appeals to Kyiv to give up its territories have revealed the US administration’s fundamental misunderstanding of the roots and existential nature of the conflict. Putin has repeatedly denied Ukraine’s statehood and claimed that Ukrainians and Russians are one nation. Thus, Putin’s war is aimed not only at the occupation of land but primarily at the liquidation of an independent state (and everyone who would resist it). If one looks at the war from this perspective, a question arises: what would fundamentally change if Kyiv gave up Crimea or other territories? Ukraine, therefore, has no other choice but to keep fighting for its right to exist and be part of the European project.
Putin proposed a 3-day ceasefire on the Victory Day to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II ‘peacefully’. This means that Moscow is not ready to move towards reaching a peace agreement with Kyiv any time soon. Russia needed a ceasefire to both pompously celebrate the holidays and prepare its troops for future assault operations. At one point, Trump’s statements gave a reason to believe that he is gradually moving from solely applying pressure on Ukraine to also trying to put some sanctions pressure on Russia.[2] Eventually, the phone call between Presidents Trump and Putin reconfirmed the hypothesis that the interests of the current US Administration coincide with those of the Kremlin.[3] Trump wants to be able to redirect his attention from the war in Ukraine: stop the active phase of the war regardless of the conditions, and focus on containing China.
Critical Minerals. A Done Deal
The American president brought up Ukraine’s rare-earth minerals in the context of his desire to make Ukraine pay the US back for the assistance that it had provided since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. The Trump administration estimated the amount of aid to be $500 billion; however, the US had delivered support worth about $120 billion.
In the initial draft of the agreement, Ukraine was supposed to give up control over not only the natural resource deposits, including oil and natural gas, but also its port and other infrastructure. Those conditions were more stringent than the reparations imposed on Germany following World War I. Moreover, the proposed agreement did not include any security guarantees for Ukraine, and the United States refused to discuss the issue per se.
Ukraine’s President refused to sign that agreement, arguing that it did not protect his country’s interests. Trump’s response was a massive information and psychological operation against Volodymyr Zelensky, meant to both discredit him and weaken Kyiv’s position in negotiations with Moscow. Ukraine was accused of starting the war against Russia; President Zelensky was called a dictator with a 4% approval rating; and Ukraine’s successful resistance to the foreign military aggression was attributed solely to US assistance. Later, political pressure was compounded by a pause in intelligence sharing, which had an extremely negative impact on both the situation on the battlefield and the morale in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The leadership in Kyiv found itself in a difficult situation: on the one hand, it was critical to maintain a partnership with the United States; on the other hand, it was impossible to make compromises that would undermine Ukraine’s national interests.
Eventually, lengthy rounds of negotiations resulted in the US-Ukraine Minerals Deal. It envisages the establishment of the Ukrainian-American Reinvestment Fund to be managed by the two countries on the basis of equal partnership. Ukraine will retain full ownership and control over its natural resources and will be the one deciding the deposits to be developed. Washington will make a direct contribution to the fund by continuing to provide military assistance, while Kyiv will share 50% of revenue, but only from new licenses.
It is important that the final text does not say that Ukraine is in debt for the assistance already delivered. However, neither the old nor the new draft mentions US security guarantees to Ukraine. Trump can now tout the agreement as the first tangible achievement of his 100 days in office and himself for scoring political points for ‘restoring fairness’ in US-Ukraine relations.
A Deciding Moment
The mineral deal between Ukraine and the United States shields President Zelensky from criticism and, in theory, allows President Trump to become a partner of Ukraine, rather than a neutral mediator. It is unclear, however, how the agreement will be implemented in practice and whether the signatories will benefit from it. It may, nonetheless, have an impact on the dynamics of the negotiation process and the US stance on supporting Ukraine. Today, in the US Intelligence community’s assessment that Russia is likely to change its strategic goals in the war against Ukraine and focus on strengthening its positions in the occupied territories and its own economy.
Russia’s economy has been suffering from the cumulative effect of sanctions and falling oil prices. It may find itself in even greater trouble if additional pressure measures are introduced, such as new restrictions or 500% tariffs on imports from countries that buy Russian oil, oil products, natural gas, and uranium, proposed by Republican Senator and Trump ally Lindsey Graham. Despite Senator Graham’s bellicose statements, Trump does not seem to share the ‘diplomacy through force’ approach towards Russia and is shifting responsibility for ending the war to the EU and the warring countries themselves.
The US course towards the routinisation of the war is already having a ripple effect on the Coalition of the Willing. Public statements in support of Ukraine and the lack of practical steps are a consequence of the US position, which the coalition countries have to look back at. The recently introduced 17th package of EU sanctions intends to limit the economic gains brought by Russia’s shadow fleet, but this is clearly not enough to force Putin to enter real peace negotiations. The routinisation of war implies that the main political actors accept the new normality, in which the Russian Federation can neither achieve its goals by military means nor afford to abandon them. In such a scenario, the US and the EU will continue to provide enough military assistance to Ukraine to maintain the status quo.
[1] Mykola Nazarov, “War and Society,” ICDS, May 2024.
[2] Andrew E. Kramer, Marc Santora, “Trump Says U.S. Will Impose More Sanctions on Russia if It Does Not Agree to an Extended Truce,” The New York Times, 9 May 2025.
[3] Tim Ross, “29 times Donald Trump did what Putin wanted,” Politico, 21 February 2025.
Views expressed in ICDS publications are those of the author(s).