Despite the prevailing despondency among Ukraine’s supporters, there are reasons to believe that Trump and Putin remain far from reaching any substantial deal. While concerns over Trump’s potential moves are justified, many interpret recent developments as a major victory for Putin. A more measured perspective is warranted.

Keith Kellogg has urged Putin to engage in talks with Zelensky, threatened to “break Russia’s economic back” if it refuses to concede, and vowed to disrupt its alliances with China. Meanwhile, Trump is reportedly pressuring Kyiv to sign a treaty allowing U.S. troops to secure mineral deposits, granting the U.S. a 50% stake—much of which lies in territory currently controlled by Russian forces. Pete Hegseth’s statements on Ukraine’s NATO non-membership and the impossibility of returning to the 2014 borders may have been well received in Moscow. However, the question of “ironclad guarantees” remains a critical issue for Russia and lacks a workable solution.

Putin has already achieved much of what a Trump presidency was expected to deliver: a weakened Ukraine, curtailed Western aid, and a divided West. He believes that the U.S. has abandoned the goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia—another advantage for Moscow. Yet, Washington and Moscow remain fundamentally at odds over Ukraine. In my view, no meaningful alignment is on the horizon. Putin will not meet with Zelensky, nor will he recognize any treaty signed by him—especially one concerning mineral deposits. He will definitely reject the presence of American or European troops in Ukraine, given the current level of confrontation with the West. A ceasefire could be a tactical option, but only as a means to ultimately remove Zelensky from power. More sanctions will have no meaningful impact on Putin’s strategic outlook, at least in the foreseeable future.

Trump’s administration operates under the premise that both Russia and Ukraine will need to make concessions. But what incentive does Putin have? If Trump’s team fails to grasp that Putin believes he can achieve his objectives in Ukraine—regardless of Trump’s involvement, sanctions, or Western pressure—they will hit a wall. Putin’s primary goal is not simply to exit the crisis or restore normal relations. He cannot be “bought” with G8 reinstatement, a prospect that no one in Moscow takes seriously. His objective is to reshape the security order entirely and bring Ukraine under Russian geopolitical influence—meaning no foreign troops, no Ukrainian army, and no full sovereignty.

To be clear, Putin does stand to benefit from a Trump presidency. However, the chances of a genuine peace deal—beyond a temporary ceasefire—are extremely slim. Ultimately, Ukraine’s future will be determined by its ability to defend itself.

The real question is whether the West can afford—not just politically, but in terms of resources—to shield Ukraine from Russian aggression and risk direct confrontation with Russia. The answer is already evident: Ukraine is in a catastrophic state, while Russia continues to leverage its military advantage. Putin will attempt to convince Trump to abandon Ukraine entirely, though there is no guarantee that Trump will comply. If this strategy fails, little will stand in the way of further Russian military advances, potentially forcing Kyiv into a desperate position and escalating the conflict in unpredictable ways.