As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year, former CIA Moscow station chief Dan Hoffman remarked, “We are way closer to the beginning than we are to the end,” highlighting the uncertain future.

Following President Donald Trump’s re-election on Nov. 5, 2024, the West has been contemplating the implications for the conflict in Ukraine, as Washington seeks to rebuild relations with Moscow to achieve a resolution and secure a peace agreement.

Recent diplomatic activity includes a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a meeting between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a meeting between retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statement questioning Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, which sparked international discussion.

However, instead of fostering optimism about a potential end to the war, these developments have raised concerns globally, creating a tense geopolitical climate.

Hoffman pointed out the complexities in reaching a ceasefire, saying, “What a ceasefire would look like? I have no idea,” noting the many factors influencing a potential agreement between Moscow and Kyiv.

“It’s getting the Russians to stop. That’s the key,” he stressed, adding, “The Russians are intrigued by the idea that they could make a grand bargain with this administration and eliminate the sanctions that are causing so much harm.”

Hoffman cautioned, “But what hangs over this is Vladimir Putin – he’s a KGB guy. He hates Donald Trump just as much as he hates Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, and every one of us, because the United States is the main enemy,” adding, “He’s going to try to get a great deal.”

Hoffman explained, “Putin’s going to try to frame negotiations as if Russia is going toe to toe with the United States, he will want to make it look like Russia got the better of us, to enhance his own image and the Kremlin’s [to] throw weight against us globally, including in the MIddle East and Africa.”

Key considerations will include security guarantees for Ukraine and the extent of Russia’s influence on NATO’s membership policy.

Catherine Sendak, director of transatlantic defense and security with the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), argued during a discussion on Ukraine on Thursday that “Ukraine’s NATO membership should not be a negotiation tactic, because we don’t want Russia to have, you know, de facto veto power over who joins NATO.”

Some nations, including Britain and France, have expressed willingness to deploy troops as a deterrent force following a ceasefire, a proposition already deemed unacceptable by Russian officials.

Even with European forces present in Ukraine, their role as a deterrent force remains unclear.

Questions persist regarding whether European forces would patrol Ukrainian borders with Russia or provide air and naval support to Kyiv.

Experts at the CEPA discussion agreed that U.S. involvement is essential, even though the Trump administration has indicated that sending troops to Ukraine is not an option and may consider withdrawing American forces from Europe.

William Monahan, senior fellow with CEPA and former deputy assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs during the previous Trump administration, noted, “Many European nations just have not had any experience in leading a force of that size.”

He added, “Determining where the U.S. could be providing key enablers, I think, would be an essential element of any force, and determining its credibility and deterrence capability.”

Putin has stated that his current war aim is to control four Ukrainian regions—Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—which he illegally “annexed” in 2022, despite his forces not fully controlling them.

Zelenskyy has refused to concede any territory to Russia, including Crimea, which Russia has illegally occupied since 2014, a goal that Hegseth recently described as “unrealistic” in negotiations.

However, some suggest that Ukraine might not need to cede territory to achieve a ceasefire.

This proposal suggests that the territory would remain internationally recognized as “occupied” by Russia, which would allow the fighting to stop, though Kyiv and its international partners would then need to attempt to renegotiate land releases at a later time.

The Trump administration is clearly pushing for greater European military support for Ukraine. However, as European nations increase their defense spending without U.S. support, security experts are warning that this shift is altering geopolitical perceptions of the U.S. and its reliability as an ally.

Sam Green, director of democratic resilience at CEPA and professor of Russian politics at King’s College London, stated, “I think there is a group of European countries now, I think increasingly, including the U.K. potentially, and France, that actually are beginning to see the U.S. as part of the problem.”

Green suggested that European nations might need to develop their own solutions to counter a U.S.-Moscow ceasefire proposal for Ukraine.

Ultimately, security experts cautioned that the growing divisions between Washington under the Trump administration and Europe are serving Putin’s long-term objectives.

Monahan said, “I think there’s a need to get a coordinated approach that brings in our allies and partners [and] maintains that source of strength,” adding, “I think Putin is very happy he has been able to achieve one of his strategic goals, which is create disunion and division among the United States and its allies in the transatlantic relationship.”

When asked by Digital if Trump’s controversial comments, such as calling , claiming he has low internal approval ratings and seeming to suggest he was to blame for Russia’s illegal invasion, are aiding Putin in his negotiating calculus, Hoffman said, “I don’t know what damage, if any, it’s causing, but the intelligence community can assess that.”

He added, “What Vladimir Putin thinks about the U.S. and Ukraine, about Zelenskyy and Trump going, rhetorically at least, toe to toe in the Octagon against each other – it’s not a great look.”

Hoffman argued, “[Putin] thinks he can break Europe. He doesn’t think Europe is going to be strong enough without the United States,” stating, “That’s certainly the past. The history during the Soviet-Evil Empire, it was the U.S. strength, our nuclear umbrella, that deterred the Soviet Union from expanding.”

He said, “NATO has always been an alliance to deter Russian aggression,” adding, “We’re nowhere close to knowing how all this is going to play out.”

Hoffman cautioned, “Right now, you’re just hearing a lot of noise.”

“`