By Nina Bachkatov
On 20 January, from their respective capitals, President Putin and President Zelensky congratulated President Trump on his inauguration. Both spoke of peace, albeit with differing qualifications: for the Ukrainian leader, a “just peace”; for the Russian, a “lasting peace”. Trump envisions dialogue between Washington and Moscow—not Kyiv and Brussels—as central to his approach. The new president views himself as a peacemaker, pointing to his success in pressuring the Israeli prime minister to agree to a ceasefire with Hamas as evidence that similar pressure on Zelensky could yield results. This is reflected in Putin’s remark that their dialogue should aim to “prevent a Third World War”.
Moscow (as well as Kyiv and Brussels) has noted that Trump made no mention of Ukraine during his inaugural speeches, waiting until the second day of his presidency to address the issue. This approach validates the Kremlin’s cautious stance during the campaign and its interest in Trump’s appointments. Unlike Brussels, Moscow appears to recognise that “Trump 2” is more prepared than his first administration. Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov, speaking three days before the inauguration, advised against “exaggerated expectations,” noting that Russia anticipates no “drastic changes” despite a professed willingness for dialogue. After all, Trump was the first president to supply Ukraine with arms that Obama withheld, and he warned Germany about the risks of Nord Stream 2 in terms of dependence on Russia.
Sanctions
Peskov’s comments came in response to remarks by Trump’s nominee for Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, who indicated a willingness to tighten sanctions on Russia’s oil industry “if the president asks him”. This underscores a nuanced dynamic. Peskov’s evasive response reflects the Kremlin’s “wait and see” strategy, aware that negotiations over Ukraine could go in either direction: Trump might lift some sanctions as a goodwill gesture or intensify them to compel Russia to the negotiating table. He may even emulate Biden by imposing secondary sanctions, potentially targeting allies.
In either case, whether increasing or reducing sanctions, Trump’s actions will be guided by domestic considerations, particularly the impact on American consumers and industry. His energy policy, centred on “drill, drill, drill”, requires time to deliver results. While pressuring Europeans to increase American energy imports to replace Russian supplies, excessive exports could inflate domestic prices. This concern likely informed the Biden administration’s cautious stance on any sanctions that risk destabilising global markets.
Zelensky’s Dilemma
Zelensky fears that Trump approaches security discussions only with the mindset of a businessman. Unlike his predecessors, Trump focuses on national interest rather than acting as the world’s policeman. From the start of Trump’s campaign, Zelensky adopted the EU’s dismissive tone, buoyed by encouragement from NATO’s new secretary-general. More recently, however, he has sought to backpedal, acknowledging Trump’s firm stance on “no American boots on the ground”. Zelensky has even proposed European interposition forces in Ukraine but mis-stepped in Davos by suggesting an extravagant figure of 200,000 troops—far beyond Europe’s realistic capacity.
Zelensky’s pivot from mocking Trump to offering sycophantic praise of his intelligence and decisiveness may not suffice to win over a president he previously derided. Trump, with his long memory and substantial ego, likely recalls Kyiv’s strong support for Kamala Harris and Zelensky’s refusal to assist in probing Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business dealings.
A Complex Picture
Washington remains the focal point of global attention, with much uncertainty about what lies ahead. However, some elements are already clear:
- Trump seeks to open direct dialogue with Putin, initially sidelining the EU and Ukraine. Both leaders appear in no rush for a face-to-face meeting, preferring established channels to continue pre-election work.
- It is broadly accepted that Ukraine cannot reclaim lost territories, despite Russian economic woes and strikes on its infrastructure.
- Like Biden, Trump will demand greater mobilisation from Ukraine in return for aid, dismissing arguments about inadequate armaments motivating reluctance to go to the front.
- Europe’s efforts to play the US and Russia against each other are constrained by its lack of unity and dependence on American intelligence and military infrastructure.
- Trump’s transactional approach will reflect the divergent priorities of his billionaire backers, whether concerning sanctions, Ukraine’s reconstruction, or European defence and energy.
- Sanctions on Russian energy hold particular significance. For Biden, they were a means to weaken Putin’s war machine. Trump, by contrast, seeks to “contain” Russian energy while cementing America’s dominance in global energy markets, particularly in Europe.
- Moscow and Kyiv are acutely aware of the contradictory signals from Trump’s appointees. His team includes Reagan-era hawks, inclined towards heavily arming Ukraine to weaken Russia, and traditional Trumpists, who prioritise peace through Ukrainian concessions.
- Trump views Ukraine’s security as Europe’s responsibility—both financially and militarily.
- Europe cannot afford to delay its own dialogue with Trump, lest it risk irrelevance. Failure to act may provoke declarations from Trump about Europe being “very bad for us”.
What Moscow takes seriously from the start is that Trumpism will endure, bolstered by a young vice-president ready to carry the mantle. For Putin, respect is reserved for winners but Trump will need more than transactional overtures to sway the Kremlin.