02/24/2026
New PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo by Mikhail Troitskiy
After Donald Trump’s reelection as U.S. president in November 2024, his team quietly reached out to Russia (and even more quietly to Ukraine) to explore an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. The mediation effort was initially kept entirely behind the scenes. By late spring 2025, however, it could no longer be concealed, emerging as a major focus of U.S. foreign policy and signaling confidence that clinching a peace deal required just a final, high-level push.
In August 2025, the United States moved its effort completely into the open. At a summit in Alaska with Vladimir Putin (followed by consultations with Volodymyr Zelensky), Trump hailed “private” progress—even predicting a Russia-Ukraine summit soon—yet each side gave different accounts of the talks, and Putin’s public stance remained unchanged. The Kremlin swiftly ruled out a near-term summit with Ukraine and offered no concrete concessions. Notably, it withdrew a previously floated proposal—swapping occupied southern Ukraine for unoccupied parts of the Donbas. That trial balloon drew a positive response from Ukraine and some European partners, before bursting once the discussion came to light. While voicing maximalist demands, the Kremlin has since continued to insist on keeping under wraps the content of its negotiations with Washington on Ukraine and asking that the United States also avoid any disclosures.
These demands highlight the core dilemma of secrecy in mediation. On the one hand, closed-door negotiations create flexibility conducive to deal-making. On the other hand, secrecy lets parties backtrack with impunity and can leave mediators looking naïve or compromised if things go awry. The 2025 trends in negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war raise the question: Under what conditions should a mediator reveal a peace effort started in private?
