BEN MORGAN: No peace deal in Ukraine deal after Trump’s call, what next?

After the failed Istanbul conference, President Trump intervened in negotiations, saying “nothing is going to happen” until he meets with Putin.  An intervention that indicates Trump is concerned to be seen as the deal-maker, and that he is keen to take credit for peace in Ukraine.  Probably he was carefully considering his legacy, his ego driving him to take credit for any peace-deal.  

However, Trump is facing an implacable opponent in Putin. Whose position also appears to be based on ego, a desire to be recognised as a great leader, who returned Ukraine to Russia. Putin’s desire to recreate the Soviet Union or a new Russian Empire is well-documented. For example, in his essay, On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians Putin clearly states that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, an idea that underpins his approach to the war. 

Sir Alex Younger, retired head of the UK’s Security Intelligence Service has stated that the release of this essay was when he knew Russia would invade Ukraine.  The essay is a long manifesto that painstakingly states Putin’s case for Russia to control Ukraine and casts the struggle in terms of a battle between ‘Great Powers.’ For example, Putin states “Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia.”  

A noteworthy point is that Putin’s world-view is based on an old-fashioned geo-political narrative, that pre-dates ideas of an international rules-based order. Instead, Putin’s position is based on the concept of Great Powers, that large countries exert economic and military influence on smaller countries within their ‘sphere of influence. Putin sees Ukraine as a vassal state, dependent economically and militarily on Russia, like contemporary Belarus.  This means that his objective is not necessarily to conquer territory but to invoke regime change, and weaken Ukraine.  Further, it enables Putin to interpret the war as ‘defensive,’ protecting Russia’s sphere of influence.  

Putin’s position harks back to an historic world order, a romantic vision of Russia being a Great Power.  A strong nation, able to dominate a sphere of influence, neighbouring states that provide a protective buffer for Russia. This view means that any proposed peace-deal that does not weaken Ukraine sufficiently that Russia cannot dominate it will be unacceptable to Putin. 

Putin and Trump’s phone call

Trump and Putin spoke last week, a two-hour phone conversation, that produced few tangible results.  Trump hailing the discussion as a success, stating that ceasefire negotiations would start immediately. Trump is also backpedalling on one of his previous positions, saying that peace negotiations will only work if Russia and Ukraine talk directly.  The US president proposing the two sides could meet at the Vatican, hosted by the new Pope.  A meeting that to-date has not been set.

Trump appears keen to emphasise his position as a peace-maker, acting as a broker.  However, he is careful not to take too much responsibility stating. Regardless of Trump’s optimism many observers believe, this phone call was another ‘win’ for Putin, the Russian leader simply ‘stringing Trump along’ to buy time.  His aim being to stall the process, and undermine the US -Europe relationship.  Meanwhile, angling to meet face-to-face with Trump and charm him into reducing support for Ukraine.  

Putin’s remarks were more constrained than Trump, the BBC reporting that he said “We have agreed with the US president that Russia will offer and is ready to work with Ukraine on a memorandum on a possible future peace agreement.” Part of a carefully worded statement that commits Russia to little.  Putin appears to be playing for time, gambling that every day US and European support is delayed, is a day that Russian’s situation might change. 

Soon after the phone call, on 24 May, Russia launched one of its biggest strikes on Kyiv since the war began. The Guardian reported 14 ballistic missiles and 250 drones, launched in a series of waves designed to confuse Ukraine’s air defences. This strike was followed by more large attacks on Ukrainian cities including Odessa.  Putin’s bombs proving that the war continues unabated regardless of discussions between Putin and Trump. 

Trump on the other hand, has not followed through on threatened sanctions.  And, it is evident from his comments immediately after the phone call that he is keen to distance himself including remarking that if they are not productive, “I’ll just back away and they’ll have to keep going.“

Europe’s conundrum

European leaders are currently caught in a dilemma.  On one hand, they want US support to defeat Russia in Ukraine, but they also have longer-term concerns about conflict with Russia, or China.  Europe’s leaders understand that the rise of authoritarian nations is a strategic challenge for all democratic nations, and it is vital that Europe, the US and their international partners maintain unity.  If the US leaves NATO, or withdraws further into isolationism authoritarian regimes are likely to be more assertive.  

Therefore, European diplomacy is trying to balance taking a hard line against Russia with managing the Trump White House.  Europe’s leaders trying hard to avoid providing the Trump White House with an excuse for to decouple the US from Europe.  A situation further aggravated this week by Trump’s threats of large tariffs against the European Union.  It is evident, that Trumps’ White House does not appear to have a unified approach that balances economic and military strategy.  

The battlefield situation

At operational-level there is little change in the disposition of forces, and Russia continues to engage along the length of the frontline. Russia’s ‘full court’ press continues from Sumy to Dnipro River. Further, both sides are maintaining their air campaigns, drones and missiles regularly crossing the border and striking targets deep behind the frontline.

Last, Ukraine’s drones continued to strike targets in Moscow, disrupting air travel and shutting down the internet in a couple of Russian regions. Another Ukrainian drone strike on 23 May hit a factory making parts for Russian missiles including Iskander ballistic missiles, in Lipetsk Oblast. And, as discussed Russia continues to launch large strikes against Ukraine. 

On the front-line, Open-Source Intelligence sources and Ukrainian government reporting indicate a slower tempo of activity.  The key indicators being numbers of Russian attacks, and estimated Russian casualties, both metrics lower than normal. 

For example, the UK Ministry of Defence reported on 9 May that “In April 2025, Russian territorial gains in Ukraine continued at a significantly decreased rate relative to late 2024.”  A trend that appears to be continuing, although it is notable that last week Russian forces made tactically significant gains near Kostyantynivka. A situation that is developing, and that observers should keep watching because a Russian victory in this area could be significant. Kostyantynivka is important because it dominates the local rail and road networks that supply the large cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. 

It seems certain that one of Putin’s operational-level objectives is to capture all of Donetsk, specifically the remaining two large cities in Ukrainian hands. This operational-level objective has driven Russian tactical-level operations in Donetsk throughout the campaign. Russia’s tactical dispositions, main-effort changing over time but always remaining consistent with the operational-level goal of capturing Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. 

Currently, the most important activity appears to be south-west of Kostyantynivka, near the towns of Toretsk, Niu York and Chasiv Yar. 

The development Russia’s campaign in Donetsk breaks into several phases during which their main effort has switched, and the phases can be summarised as follows: 

• The long and costly battles for Bakhmut and Avdiivka, capture of these towns paved the way for an assault on Chasiv Yar. A town situated on high ground that dominates Kostyantynivka, a small but important transport hub. 

• The next phases was Russia’s failed attempt to take Chasiv Yar, another difficult and costly battle.

• When Chasiv Yar could not be captured Russia’s forces swung south, focussing on capturing Pokrovsk, another important transport hub. Since, August 2024 Russia’s Donetsk campaign has focussed in this area. Initially, Russian forces advanced west towards the town but were held so have attempted an envelopment from the south. 

Now after unsuccessfully attacking Pokrovsk, then trying to envelop it, and after suffering a series of small counter-attacks Russia’s main effort appears to be switching again. Moving north and focussing on a more direct attack on Kostyantynivka, the first phase of which is consolidation of a firm base, to attack from near Toretsk and Niu York.  Russian forces do appear to be making progress, the UK Ministry of Defence recently reported tactically significant Russian advances in the area, some of up to 5km. A large distance in the current conflict. Further, Russian forces now sit astride the H-32 motorway that link Pokrovsk and Kostyantynivka.   

However, it is important to note that a key feature of this war, is the ground that matters is defensible locations.  Places like towns or high features with concealment that provide defenders with refuge from drone surveillance.  So, it will take some time to see whether this activity translates into an operationally significant impact, like the loss of Kostyantynivka. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, this week’s events reminded me of Wilfred Owen’s poem, The Parable of the Old Man and the Young. The poem is a re-telling of the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. In Owen’s poem, God asks to Abraham sacrifice the ’Ram of Pride’ instead of his son. However, Owen’s Abraham refuses, and the poet tells us:

But the old man would not so, but slew his son,

And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

Owen’s poem appears to tell a timeless story.  A story of terrible sacrifices for very insubstantial goals, the ego of leaders.  In this case, one stubborn old man who is committed to a medieval interpretation of what it means to be ‘Russian.’ And, another stubborn old man more concerned about how he looks, than resolving the war.

Meanwhile, young Russian soldiers and Ukrainians die in huge numbers, sacrificed on the alter of ego. Recent events increasingly indicate that Putin is stalling, bluffing and hoping for a victory but is willing to fight for as long as it takes to secure the peace he wants.  An insecure Ukraine, easily dominated by Russia.  

Unless negotiators offer him a weak and easily dominated Ukraine, Putin will fight on and on, or until Russia is defeated. Therefore, the only way to stop the war is to demonstrate to Putin that he will not win, and this requires unity of effort and commitment to arming Ukraine, and sanctioning Russia from its supporters.  The US has the economic and military power to force Putin to recalculate, to force peace negotiations.  Unfortunately, it seems that Europe may need to support Ukraine alone, meaning a longer and more uncertain time for Ukraine, Europe and the World.

Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack