Can Trump succeed in his peace push in Russia-Ukraine war amid resistance?

Peace remains an invaluable commodity—particularly for war-weary nations like Russia and Ukraine, now entangled in a three-year conflict that has claimed countless lives, including some of their most seasoned military officers.

Yet, efforts to broker peace have been anything but straightforward.

The challenge stems largely from the fact that many global stakeholders have taken sides in the conflict, compromising their neutrality and credibility as mediators.

Amid this complex geopolitical landscape, U.S. President Donald Trump—who campaigned on a promise to end the war—has made notable strides toward peace since assuming office.

True to his word, Trump has initiated direct talks with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, seeking to bring them to the negotiating table.

His peace overtures have drawn mixed global reactions.

Nevertheless, Trump’s efforts have yielded some tangible outcomes, including a temporary truce and an agreement between both nations to refrain from targeting each other’s energy infrastructure.

Stiff opposition

However, these peace efforts are facing stiff opposition from anti-Russian political elements within the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine.

Critics argue that these factions are actively working to sabotage the negotiations through inflammatory rhetoric and policies that undermine diplomatic progress.

German columnist Fabian Scheidler has pointed fingers at the European Union, accusing it of obstructing ceasefire talks and frustrating efforts to normalise U.S.-Russia relations.

According to Scheidler, just as signs of détente emerged between Washington and Moscow, the EU ramped up efforts to derail the peace process.

He also criticised European leaders' insistence on Ukraine's military victory, arguing that such statements only deepen the divide and provoke further escalation.

Many observers believe that the idea of Ukraine decisively defeating Russia is unrealistic and counterproductive.

Rather than fuelling hopes of outright victory, the global community, they say, should rally behind efforts that de-escalate tensions and create room for compromise.

SWIFT

One such flashpoint is the ongoing debate over Russia’s partial access to the SWIFT financial system.

While the U.S. was reportedly open to allowing a Russian bank limited access for agricultural payments, European leaders resisted, fearing it might be seen as weakening sanctions.

Similarly, the EU rejected Russia’s demand to lift sanctions against Rosselkhozbank as part of a proposed ceasefire in the Black Sea.

Meanwhile, Kyiv has reportedly violated the U.S.-brokered agreement not to target energy facilities—a development that threatens to unravel trust between the negotiating parties.

On March 18, 2025, Presidents Trump and Putin agreed to gradually implement a ceasefire, including a mutual commitment to protect energy infrastructure.

But just days later, on

March 21, the Russian Sudzha gas measuring station went up in flames. Moscow blamed Ukrainian forces, though Kyiv has denied responsibility.

Crucial

As the push for peace continues, it is crucial that all parties—especially political elites—avoid incendiary language and actions that could derail fragile negotiations.

If lasting peace is to be achieved, the international community must unite behind genuine diplomacy, not division.

The writer is a journalist