Peace Without Washington? The Risks Of Bilateral Talks Between Ukraine And Russia

As the war in Ukraine grinds into its third year, a new shift in tone from Washington has emerged. President Donald Trump declared that negotiations between Ukraine and Russia would begin “immediately” —while explicitly leaving the talks to the two countries to resolve without US mediation. The comment diverges sharply from the traditional US role as a leading voice in the diplomatic response to the war and raises questions about the viability and security of a settlement forged in the absence of Western oversight.

Bilateral negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are not new. They have occurred at various stages of the conflict, including during the early weeks of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. But these talks have consistently failed to produce meaningful results, largely because of the massive power imbalance between the two nations. The idea of leaving Kyiv and Moscow to sort out peace on their own, without a US or broader Western presence, introduces significant strategic and diplomatic risks, not just for Ukraine but for European security and international norms.

The Role the US Has Played So Far

Since the invasion began, the United States has been Ukraine’s most important military and diplomatic backer. Washington has supplied tens of billions of dollars in weapons, intelligence, and economic aid. Alongside NATO allies and the EU, it has maintained a unified sanctions regime against Russia and consistently reinforced Ukraine’s position in international forums.

This involvement has not been limited to material support. The US has played a key role in shaping the diplomatic conditions for any future settlement. Previous administrations—Democratic and Republican—have broadly agreed that any peace must preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This positioning has given Ukraine a stronger platform from which to negotiate, backed by the implicit guarantee that the West would not allow Moscow to dictate terms through force alone.

Trump’s Non-Interventionist Shift

Trump’s approach marks a clear departure from this doctrine. By suggesting that Ukraine and Russia should conduct direct talks without the US, he echoes a long-standing preference for bilateralism and disengagement from multilateral obligations. While he frames this as a move toward “peace through strength” or practical diplomacy, it also signals an isolationist reflex that has surfaced before in his foreign policy positions—from NATO skepticism to an aversion to extended military entanglements.

There may be political incentives for such statements. With the US electorate wary of foreign aid spending and weary of overseas conflict, presenting a peace-first platform can appeal to segments of both conservative and independent voters. But that simplicity masks the complexity on the ground—and the risks such a strategy would introduce.

Why Excluding the US Is Dangerous

The core issue with bilateral-only talks is asymmetry. Russia is a nuclear-armed power with a much larger military and economy. It has shown repeatedly that it is willing to use military escalation, energy blackmail, and disinformation as tools of negotiation. Ukraine, though resilient and backed by Western allies, does not have equal leverage at the table. Without external guarantees or facilitators, there is a risk that any “agreement” could amount to coercion rather than consent.

A peace deal negotiated without US or Western involvement would also lack enforceability. If Russia violates ceasefire terms—as it did following the Minsk accords in 2015—who ensures compliance? Without a framework backed by major powers, any future breach of terms becomes harder to prevent or punish.

Moreover, a bilateral deal risks normalizing the use of military aggression to achieve geopolitical aims. If Russia secures territorial gains and a weakened Ukraine is pressured into accepting them, it sets a precedent that undermines international law. Other states watching—particularly those with their own territorial ambitions—may draw dangerous lessons.

Broader Implications for Europe

For Europe, the consequences could be severe. The continent has aligned closely with the US on security matters for decades, with NATO as the anchor of transatlantic defense. If the US steps back, it leaves a vacuum that EU states may not be able to fill quickly or coherently.

European capitals—especially Warsaw, Vilnius, and others near Russia’s border—are already alarmed at any sign of US disengagement. They see Ukraine not just as a partner but as a buffer against future Russian aggression. A peace settlement reached without Western involvement could fracture NATO unity and fuel political divisions within the EU about how to deal with Moscow going forward.

There are also longer-term implications. A US retreat from Eastern European security would shift the balance of power in the region. Russia would almost certainly use a successful bilateral settlement to claim vindication, reassert influence over its near-abroad, and test the resolve of other former Soviet states.

Legal and Diplomatic Ramifications

Beyond geopolitics, there are legal and reputational issues at stake. A deal signed under duress, or one that codifies the annexation of occupied territories, would be seen as illegitimate by many in the international community. It would likely violate the UN Charter and various bilateral agreements signed since the end of the Cold War. The West, having spent years rejecting Russia’s claims over Crimea and the Donbas, would find itself in a difficult position if it were asked to later endorse or recognize such an outcome.

In such a scenario, Ukraine would also have a harder time accessing reconstruction aid or joining institutions like NATO or the EU, as unresolved sovereignty disputes remain a barrier to accession. Diplomatically, the West would be on the back foot, having allowed a postwar settlement that undermines the rules-based order it claims to defend.

Conclusion

Trump’s call to let Russia and Ukraine resolve the war directly may resonate with those seeking a fast end to the conflict. But it neglects the fundamental realities of the situation: the imbalance between the parties, the consequences of a weak peace, and the strategic damage done when major powers abdicate their role in shaping outcomes.

Without Washington, the risks multiply. The US does not need to dictate terms, but it must remain present, both to support Ukraine and to prevent a peace process from becoming a tool of capitulation. Effective diplomacy in this case requires not just negotiation but balance, credibility, and the backing of global institutions. A true peace will only last if it is fair, enforceable, and supported by those with the power to uphold it.

Author: Gerardine Lucero