The war in Ukraine passed its three-year mark in February, which remains stubbornly unresolved. Not long after the unforgettable, pivotal Oval Office meeting occurred on February 25, 2025, the publicly tense discussion between President Trump, Vice President Zelenskyy, and Vice President JD Vance seemed to turn the tide on the United States’ stance on the Russia-Ukraine War. With the war now in its third year, it continues to defy easy resolution, marked by a shifting geopolitical landscape and the persistent challenge of establishing any meaningful diplomacy. Ukraine faces growing pressure from both the U.S. and Russia, while its membership in NATO continues to face setbacks.
Now, with the U.S. shifting its stance on Ukraine’s NATO membership, Russia’s influence and territorial gains appear to be expanding. This evolving relationship between Washington and Moscow has raised concerns among European allies. Many increasingly feel excluded from important negotiations and are beginning to consider strategies to “de-risk” themselves from what they perceive as an erratic U.S. foreign policy. Today, Europe now plays a crucial role in supporting Ukraine in the way and providing economic and militaristic support as the United States cuts back its aid.
The shift in relationship dynamics between Russia and the United States is new for most, yet widely expected. Donald Trump’s past and expected policies have demonstrated a more positive approach to relations with Russia. In recent days, he has blamed Ukraine for initiating the war, with heavy opposition against the country that has been facing Russian aggression since 2014. His administration has been known to show sympathy toward Russia during the war, but the situation is further complicated by the fact that the U.S. is frequently at odds with its European partners, excluding them from most negotiations on Ukraine and undermining the united front against Russia.
“Eight hundred and thirty miles of NATO and European Union presence were added on Putin’s doorstep when Finland joined NATO in 2023, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He is not mentioning that or talking about that.” Professor Lanoux of Connecticut College’s Slavic Studies Department reiterated; “The real threat to him is a successful democratic Slavic State right next door.” Lanoux, who specializes in Russian and Polish languages, and nationhood and nationalism studies emphasizes the idea that Putin’s motives are widely believed to stem from his idea that his borders are aggressively populated with NATO and EU presence, two organizations Ukraine has been eagerly trying to join.
“From day 1, Russia has been the aggressor,” Lanoux clarified; “The war can stop at any moment– When Russia stops firing. However, we can see that Russia does not want to stop the war.”
Putin’s motives seem to exemplify that he plans to drag on the war if it means getting what he wants. Even if it means feigned ceasefire proposals. A 30 Day ceasefire proposed by the United States was accepted by Ukraine on April 11th. Russia seemed to ignore it; instead carrying out a significant attack on April 13th where Russian missiles struck the town of Sumy, killing 34 people; most of whom were gathered for Palm Sunday celebration. One of the most intense and deadliest attacks on the capital city, Kyiv, killed 35 and injured over 100 on April 24. The strike marked the largest attack on Ukraine in around 9 months, with 70 missiles and 145 drones used for the operation.
Over this year’s Easter weekend, Putin promptly announced an ‘Easter Sunday’ ceasefire, essentially ordering his troops to unilaterally pause assaults on Ukrainian infrastructure. The period, which spanned from 18:00 Moscow time on April 19 to 00:00 on April 21, 2025, (11:00 AM Saturday to 5:00 PM Sunday EST) was said to last for a total of 30 hours. The sudden change of pace from Russia was quick to gain skepticism. This skepticism proved well-founded. The call for a halt in combat proved to be ineffective, as both sides reportedly continued fighting despite the announcement. The apparent failure of this ceasefire raised critical questions for both nations. Why would Russia propose a ceasefire if they never planned to uphold it in the first place? Was it just Putin exercising a political jab? Why did Ukraine not stop fighting either if that’s all they wanted?
“In order for it to be a ceasefire,” Lanoux emphasized: “You have to cease…firing. Russia has not done that. Putin has not acted in good faith in these negotiations.” Numerous failed ceasefire attempts– over 20– all failed eventually in Ukraine, and some within minutes of going into effect.
Developments regarding a viable ceasefire have unfortunately shown minimal progress. Headlines frequently feature discussions and negotiation attempts between the U.S. and Russia, as well as the U.S. and Ukraine. Adding to the complexity, on April 18th, Vladimir Putin ordered a three-day halt to all military operations. This directive was ostensibly to allow Russia to host its annual ‘Victory Day’ parade, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Soviet’s victory over Nazi Germany in WWII. Russia will allow three days, Ukraine wants thirty. President Zelenskyy even stated that it was more than just Ukraine that wanted thirty days: it’s the entire world. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Sybiha questioned the sincerity of Russia’s short ceasefire, asking, “Why wait until May 8th? If the fire can be ceased now and on any date for 30 days—so it is real, not just for a parade.”
The path to peace in Ukraine remains fraught with obstacles. There is increasing doubt behind Moscow’s recent actions. Even President Trump publicly explained his perspective, writing, “It makes me think that maybe he [Putin] doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently,” on his Truth Social media account. Ukraine knows who Putin is, since their history proves they are well acquainted with severe leadership tactics. The proposed ceasefires, often short-lived and marred by continued violence, highlight the deep mistrust and conflicting agendas at play.
Professor Lanoux explains that, for Ukrainians, “During any ‘ceasefire’ Putin offers, they need to be prepared to continue fighting back,” and importantly, “Russia can stop the war at any moment, but Ukraine cannot.” There is a growing number of complexities regarding the negotiation situation. More headlines will continue to come out that may change the tide of diplomacy, or once again fall back into an unclear and incomplete path for resolution. It is often hard and seems to continue to be hard to get a clear understanding of Russia’s strategic objectives, but the same seems to go for the United States today as well.
