The Putin-Trump saga: Military tensions and the stakes of international diplomacy

On 6 August, US special envoy Steve Witkoff made a trip to Moscow. The visit to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration is one of the latest developments in a back-and-forth between President Putin and United States President Donald Trump that has gone on since the beginning of his presidency, over six months ago.

President Trump claims that in the face of the ongoing war between Ukraine and neighbouring Russia, his primary goal has always been to usher in peace. However, many of his actions seem to have furthered tensions between the two warring nations.

Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to be moved closer to Russia in order to pressure the nation in the wake of disagreements over their handling of the war with Ukraine. This is yet another indicator of the president’s loyalty and allegiances being malleable, especially after previously attacking Ukraine’s handling of the conflict.

Many argue that Trump has held Putin as an idol, affirming many of Putin’s controversial policies and previous military ventures

During President Trump’s first term, the commander-in-chief had an unmistakable penchant for impressing authoritarian world leaders. Putin was a prime example. President Trump had always made a special effort in diplomatic relations with President Putin.

A notable example of this would be Trump publicly refuting allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. At the Helsinki Summit in 2018, Trump stood in solidarity with Putin, reasserting his belief that there was no Russian involvement in US elections cementing the bond between the two leaders. Many argue that Trump has held Putin as an idol, affirming many of Putin’s controversial policies and previous military ventures, an additional example of which included his acceptance of the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014.

This time, however, it seems as though some of the previous goodwill between the two nations has been eroded. Since 2014, Russia’s policies seem to have been motivated more by its own individual self-interest, rather than a desire to preserve the peace in the global world order, setting itself in opposition to the rest of Europe.

The Russian goal has been relatively consistent in trying to weaken Ukrainian autonomy in order to create greater dependence on its Eastern neighbour

As part of this strategy, Putin has made a point of preventing Ukraine’s western integration. This has included blocking Ukraine from joining the NATO alliance and repeatedly trying to wean the country off its close ties to Western Europe. The Russian goal has been relatively consistent in trying to weaken Ukrainian autonomy in order to create greater dependence on its Eastern neighbour.

President Trump currently appears to have less negotiating power with Russia, who have – in the past few months – doubled down on their onslaught on Ukraine with continued aerial bombardments. These have been increasingly provocative and brutal, presumably in an attempt to force Ukraine to submit to Putin’s demands and accept defeat.

This scale of increase in aggression from Russia has been perceived as an upping of the ante by many in the US: “I think we in Washington sometimes underestimate just how invested the Kremlin is in waging this war,” said David Salvo, director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund.

In addition to Russia’s continued commitment to the war, making Ukraine’s position of defiance seem increasingly untenable, the Trump team’s explosive and erratic approach to diplomacy also seems to pose a significant threat to the efforts of President Zelensky and the Ukrainians.

“You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having the cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War Three,” said Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during a bilateral meeting at the White House in February.

This incendiary rhetoric marked a turning point in the United States’ position on the war. They had been highly sympathetic to Ukraine since the war broke out in 2022 and had maintained distance with Russia after its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Former President Joe Biden’s administration spent an average of $25.3 billion a year supporting Ukraine’s war effort.

Rather than framing the dynamic through a conventional aggressor-victim relationship, Trump and foreign policy leaders in his cabinet have defined policy foremost through American interests. Since the beginning of Trump’s second term in January, the United States has transitioned away from a historic stance of opposition to Russian military intervention, shifting from a sentinel role focused on protecting peace in Europe to a position more of a mediator, making accommodations for Putin’s government.

This was made overtly apparent in the minerals deal that the US extracted from Ukraine in May, which included a striking provision for the US offtake of future mineral resources, where Ukraine signed away these natural resources in order to maintain the flow of both military aid and resources from the US. The Kremlin has taken the perceived ‘empty threats’ from Trump as license to take even greater liberties in their campaign against Ukraine.

In Easter of this year, Russia turned its back on a proposed ceasefire in the fighting. It instead increased bombardment, with the guise of respecting the religious holiday as a time of peace. This has been part of a series of moves which have undercut US attempts to secure a peace deal.

There is no trust in words coming from Moscow

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

“As of now, according to the commander-in-chief reports, Russian assault operations continue on several frontline sectors, and Russian artillery fire has not subsided,” Zelenskyy said, posting on the social media platform X. He continued, “Therefore, there is no trust in words coming from Moscow.”

The incident was indicative of the intense, entrenched, hardscrabble fighting that has become a signature of the conflict and what has created the strain in negotiations as both East and West try to push for an exit with minimal compromises.

With any quick fix seemingly out of reach, the US appears to be tentatively pulling back from such a high-profile involvement in the conflict. Trump’s meeting with Putin seems to reflect more of a conciliatory curtain-call of strong US pressure on Russia, rather than a forceful push to challenge a long-time adversary.

If the events of 2025 have made one thing clear, it is that high-stakes diplomacy is not navigated through handshake business deals. With the Russia-Ukraine war now extending into its third year and both countries resolute in their desire for a firm resolution, it does not look like an end will soon come.

Russia’s insistence on continually pushing against its neighbour’s land borders will continue to butt up against the Western powers pushing to ensure that Ukrainian territory does not get sacrificed. Trump’s claim, prior to getting into office, that “If I’m president, I will have that war settled in one day – 24 hours,” appears to remain unfulfilled. As those 24 hours have become six months and the fighting in Ukraine continues, such promises seem unable to hold water.