Despite President Trump’s recent expression of optimism about a potential agreement between Ukraine and Russia in the near future, security experts remain wary, suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin may not genuinely desire peace.
The atmosphere in Washington is one of uncertainty, particularly after the Trump administration initially suggested a possible withdrawal if a ceasefire wasn’t achieved. This was followed by Trump’s statement that a deal was “very likely” this week.
The White House has yet to respond to questions from Digital regarding the implications of the U.S. abandoning what Trump has emphasized on the campaign trail as his commitment to ending the war in Ukraine.
The administration has also not specified whether Washington would retaliate against Putin, as indicated last month.
“The lack of announced consequences from Trump doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t implement anti-Russia measures,” according to Rebekah Koffler, a former DIA intelligence officer and Russia expert, in a statement to Digital. “Trump likely intends to use economic pressure against to demonstrate to Putin the lengths he’s willing to go to in order to bend his adversaries to his will.”
“However, unlike the situation with China, the U.S. and Russia don’t have a similar level of interdependence. Trump’s decision regarding Russia is more complex, riskier, and requires greater consideration,” she added. “He may or may not impose harsh economic measures against Russia, given that Putin could respond with devastating, non-kinetic actions against the U.S.”
“It’s a contest of Trump’s risk tolerance against Putin’s,” Koffler stated. “And both are driven to win and possess an above-average tolerance for risk.”
The White House also did not answer inquiries from Digital regarding continued U.S. aid to Ukraine, especially in light of recent restrictions Trump has placed on military assistance to Kyiv, such as previously used to shield civilians from Russian attacks and costing $1.5 billion each.
“If we aim to be a global superpower and deter aggression—not through U.S. troops on the ground, but through general deterrence for our national security—then we should continue supporting Ukraine,” former CIA Moscow Station Chief Dan Hoffman told Digital. “It represents a small fraction of the Department of Defense budget.”
“The return on investment is substantial,” he added, referring to the Washington has supplied to Kyiv since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, in comparison to the $841.4 billion defense budget approved by Congress for 2024 alone, which Trump has advocated increasing.
A Ukrainian delegation was scheduled to meet with Trump administration officials in London on Wednesday, alongside representatives from the U.K., France, and Germany.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff is reportedly planning to return to Moscow this week to continue discussions with Russian officials, although the Kremlin has not signaled that they are nearing any agreement on ceasefire terms, let alone a peace accord.
Dmitry Peskov, a spokesperson for Putin, stated on Tuesday that the issue of Russia’s invasion was too “complex” for a swift resolution and cautioned against rushing into a deal.
“It’s not advisable to establish rigid timelines or attempt to achieve a settlement, a sustainable settlement, in a short timeframe,” he said.
The Kremlin’s stance reinforces the repeated warnings from security experts regarding securing a peace agreement with Ukraine.
“There’s no indication that Putin wants to end the war,” Hoffman said. “Which isn’t surprising, because for a war to end, either one side must win or both sides must be too exhausted to continue fighting.”
“Russia is the aggressor, so stopping them is essential for ending the war,” he added. “The consistent factor here is . His goal is to overthrow the Ukrainian government. He will continue fighting until he believes he has achieved that objective or until he is no longer able to fight.”
Koffler echoed Hoffman’s sentiment: “Putin will pursue the same strategy regardless of Trump’s actions: continuing the war of attrition until Ukraine surrenders or is completely devastated and its government collapses.”
“Putin would like to manipulate Trump and will continue to attempt to do so,” she added.
A report on Tuesday cited sources close to Putin, stating that the Kremlin chief is seeking to reshape global “spheres of influence” by negotiating leverage points between the U.S. and adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.
The article suggested Putin would try to get Trump to either impose a less-than-desirable deal on Ukraine or prevent the U.S. from aiding Kyiv by offering personally appealing deals, such as allowing Trump to build a hotel in Moscow, and geopolitical gains, like securing a nuclear agreement with Iran and a “peace deal” in Ukraine.
Digital could not independently confirm the report’s claims, but Koffler agreed that it could be a strategy Putin is considering as the U.S. pursues agreements across Europe and the Middle East.
“He could promise Trump not to share specific sensitive technologies with these two [nations],” Koffler said. “And he could convince Iran not to operationalize and weaponize its nuclear program in exchange for Trump’s promise not to target in a kinetic strike and to lift sanctions from Russia.”
“The important aspect of all of this is to give these adversaries face-saving opportunities, which is not a strong point for the U.S. style of diplomacy,” Koffler said. “But Putin’s ability to convince Trump and Trump’s decision calculus are two different things.”
“`