The discourse surrounding US President Donald Trump and his policy shift concerning Ukraine has been met with a measured response from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has strategically avoided overt displays of triumph.
Following Trump’s reinstatement in the White House, his interactions with Putin have underscored an attempt at recalibrating US-Russia relations, with the Kremlin emphasizing the importance of trust building. During their first officially acknowledged conversation on February 12, Putin articulated that the primary objective of diplomatic engagements was to foster trust between both states. This sentiment was reiterated in a subsequent two-hour discussion on March 18, during which the Kremlin’s official communication indicated that both leaders affirmed their commitment to pursuing a bilateral resolution to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
However, despite Putin’s reserved demeanour, subtle indications of Moscow’s satisfaction with Trump’s policy shift are discernible. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, in February, described the USA as adopting a “more balanced position” , a stance that Moscow openly welcomed. Additionally, the Kremlin later expressed gratitude to Trump for his purported commitment to facilitating an end to hostilities, acknowledging the significant diplomatic and strategic benefits accrued by Russia in a relatively short period.
Trump’s engagement with Russia has resulted in a series of symbolic and material concessions favorable to Moscow. Notably, following an intense discussion in the Oval Office on February 28 involving Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump temporarily suspended US military assistance to Kyiv. Moreover, Washington disengaged from an international investigative body dedicated to examining Russian war crimes, opposed a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s role in the conflict and echoed Russian narratives regarding the origins of the war, attributing blame to Kyiv.
These developments have provided Russia with a significant diplomatic advantage, reinforcing its strategic objectives. Despite these apparent gains, Russia remains cognizant of the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy approach. Given his history of abrupt policy shifts and his fluctuating positions on international issues, the Kremlin recognizes that his warmth towards Moscow may not be enduring.
The precedent set during his first term, wherein initial hopes for improved U.S.-Russia relations were thwarted by congressional sanctions and the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine, serves as a cautionary reminder for Moscow. Consequently, while the Kremlin seeks to maximize its gains under the current US administration, it remains wary of potential policy reversals.
Moscow’s strategy involves leveraging Trump’s diplomatic openness to secure a direct bilateral agreement that would ostensibly bring an end to the war in Ukraine. This envisioned agreement, from the Kremlin’s perspective, would impose substantial restrictions on Kyiv and grant Russia a decisive influence over Ukraine’s political landscape. While an ideal scenario for Putin would involve comprehensive limitations on Western military assistance to Ukraine, Moscow may also settle for partial measures that weaken Kyiv’s strategic position over time.
Even in the event of Ukrainian and European rejection of such an accord, the Kremlin anticipates that Trump’s administration may use this as a pretext to withdraw US support entirely, thereby facilitating Moscow’s long-term objectives. Beyond the Ukrainian conflict, Russia aims to leverage its relationship with Trump to recalibrate broader US-Russia diplomatic and economic relations.
The Kremlin seeks a reduction in economic sanctions and an overall improvement in bilateral ties. However, should these aspirations remain unfulfilled, Moscow appears prepared to persist with its current strategic trajectory. While the Russian economy faces significant challenges due to sustained Western sanctions, its leadership maintains a degree of stability and has capitalized on work force advantages over Ukraine to sustain military operations.
In this context, the Kremlin’s overarching objective remains the strategic defeat of Ukraine, with or without direct US support. Russia’s diplomatic overtures toward the Trump Administration commenced shortly after the 2024 US presidential election. The Kremlin sought engagement through official intelligence channels, informal networks linked to Trump, his political and business associates. One notable figure in this diplomatic maneuvering was Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, who utilized his connections with Jared Kushner and other members of Trump’s inner circle to facilitate discussions with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East.
These backchannel negotiations culminated in a high-profile meeting in Riyadh on February 18, attended by key Russian and US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. This engagement laid the groundwork for subsequent diplomatic interactions between Trump and Putin, shaping the US administration’s evolving stance on Ukraine. Putin’s strategy has been multifaceted, incorporating psychological and ideological appeals to Trump’s worldview.
Following their February 12 conversation, Trump’s rhetoric increasingly aligned with Kremlin talking points, including characterizing Zelensky as a “dictator” and raising concerns about corruption in Ukraine. Simultaneously, Putin propagated the narrative that the 2020 US presidential election had been “stolen,” suggesting that had Trump remained in power, Moscow would not have initiated military action against Kyiv. This manipulation underscores Putin’s calculated efforts to appeal to Trump’s personal and political biases to advance Russia’s strategic objectives.
Beyond personal persuasion, Moscow has positioned itself as a valuable partner in advancing Trump’s global agenda. Russia has expressed willingness to assist in US negotiations with Iran, endorsed proposals to reduce military expenditures and subtly suggested a willingness to reconfigure its strategic partnership with China.
These overtures, coupled with the rhetoric of U.S. officials such as Rubio and Vance regarding a potential “reverse Nixon” strategy— aimed at driving a wedge between Beijing and Moscow— have further ingratiated Russia with the Trump Administration. While such a geopolitical shift remains unlikely, Moscow has skillfully exploited these discussions to create the impression that closer U.S.-Russia relations could yield significant strategic dividends for Washington.
Additionally, Russia has employed cultural and ideological arguments to strengthen its ties with the Trump Administration. The Kremlin has highlighted historical US-Soviet cooperation during World War II, emphasized shared opposition to progressive social policies and positioned itself as an ally in challenging Western liberal elites. Furthermore, Moscow has suggested that economic normalization could result in lucrative business opportunities, a prospect underscored in Riyadh, where Dmitriev presented an analysis (albeit flawed) suggesting that US companies had suffered significant financial losses due to sanctions on Russia.
Amid these diplomatic overtures, Russia has reframed the Ukrainian conflict as an impediment to a broader US-Russia strategic partnership. The Kremlin has played into Trump’s frustrations with Kyiv’s insistence on strong security guarantees, portraying Zelensky as a primary obstacle to peace. Additionally, Moscow has propagated the narrative that Ukraine lacks a legitimate democratic mandate, suggesting that elections should precede any diplomatic resolution—a perspective that Trump has seemingly embraced. Zelensky’s reluctance to engage in negotiations stems from the existential nature of the conflict and his profound distrust of the Kremlin’s intentions.
Putin’s demands remain maximalist, including territorial concessions, the recognition of Russian sovereignty over occupied regions, Ukrainian military reductions and limitations on Ukraine’s security partnerships with the West. While Trump may not immediately endorse all of these conditions, Russia anticipates a gradual shift in US policy toward positions favorable to Moscow.
The Kremlin views a potential one-on-one summit between Putin and Trump as a critical opportunity to cement a favorable agreement. Moscow recalls Trump’s 2018 Helsinki summit with Putin, during which Trump expressed greater trust in the Russian leader than in US intelligence agencies. Should such a meeting occur, Russia hopes to secure Trump’s commitment to policies that undermine Ukraine’s security while advancing Moscow’s long-term geopolitical interests.
Even if Trump is unable to fully implement Russia’s preferred policies, Moscow believes that diplomatic engagement can still yield meaningful gains. The Kremlin is optimistic that Trump’s pressure on European states could erode their support for Ukraine, thereby weakening Kyiv’s defensive capabilities. Additionally, Russia views Trump’s potential cessation of US military aid as a significant strategic victory, given Ukraine’s continued reliance on Western assistance. Simultaneously, Russia continues its efforts to reestablish full diplomatic ties with the USA and secure incremental sanctions relief.
