On the heels of the first face-to-face talks between Russia and Ukraine in over three years, US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin will speak over the phone later today. “Hopefully it will be a productive day, a ceasefire will take place, and this very violent war […] will end,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at the weekend.

However, an immediate ceasefire, while desirable, is an unlikely outcome, and represents the wrong goal for today’s phone call. Instead, Trump should focus his time with Putin on identifying steps the two leaders can take to ensure that talks between Moscow and Kyiv continue. He should avoid threats of coercion and confirm US willingness to assist in negotiations when the time is right, while securing from Putin a commitment to keep Russia’s direct communication with Ukraine open. Though this result would be less triumphant than Trump might prefer, the approach is more likely to set a course towards a sustainable peace.

Soon after taking office, Trump and his advisers seemed open to a “talking while fighting” model that would allow progress towards peace even as the war between Russia and Ukraine continued. Since March, however, he has joined European allies and Ukraine itself in calling for an unconditional ceasefire before peace talks proceed. This is a mistake.

Putin has no incentive to agree to a ceasefire when he is winning on the battlefield, and has made clear that Russia will not put down its weapons until it is assured that the “root causes” of the current conflict are addressed. Ukraine’s European backers have rejected this stance and have pressed Trump to do the same, pushing for new rounds of sanctions if the Kremlin does not agree to immediately halt hostilities. This approach hasn’t previously influenced Putin’s calculus, and is unlikely to do so now. He believes Russia can withstand more economic punishment and military costs if required to alleviate its security concerns.

An immediate and unconditional ceasefire would also be surprising from a historical perspective. Efforts to settle hard-fought conflicts where there is no clear military victor often demand many rounds of negotiations alongside continued fighting before an agreement is reached. The Korean War ended only after 158 meetings spread over more than two years. Negotiations to end the Vietnam War lasted over five years and included multiple different peace proposals before final terms were reached. While it’s hard to say how long it will take for Ukraine and Russia to stop fighting for good, Trump’s chances of achieving peace may rest on patience and a willingness to see negotiations proceed simultaneously alongside fighting.

This mindset should guide Trump in his call with Putin today. Rather than putting the demand for an immediate ceasefire front and centre, Trump and his advisers should lower the stakes, encouraging the reported plan for each side to outline its vision for peace. He might also express an interest in resuming direct US-Russia discussions about steps to normalise their bilateral relationship. Finally, Trump could suggest that his team and Putin’s team begin early planning for a face-to-face meeting as both sets of negotiations proceed.

There would be two main benefits to this approach. First, it would create conditions conducive to future successful rounds of direct Russia-Ukraine talks. Ultimately, this channel offers the best chance for an enduring peace accepted by both sides and not imposed by outside forces. Second, it would facilitate continued improvement in the US-Russia relationship, another priority for the Trump administration, by signalling that Washington sees Moscow as an important partner in ending the conflict.

Trump is known for his love of high-profile engagements, but his upcoming call with Putin is not a good opportunity for dramatic dealmaking. The US President should set a more modest target, build on last week’s breakthrough meeting between the two sides, and accept that the result he seeks — an end to the war — may occur only in the longer term.

---

Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.

jekavanagh

---