Donald Trump has accelerated his push to end the Ukraine war through direct talks with Vladimir Putin and US-Russia meetings—all without Ukraine or European allies at the table. His approach appears focused on ending the conflict by freezing it in place, with Ukraine unlikely to recover its occupied territories.
“Ukraine considers any negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine to be fruitless,” President Zelenskyy stated. Trump dismissed these concerns: “I think I have the power to end this war… You shouldn’t have started it in the first place. You could have made a deal.”
This statement fundamentally misrepresents reality—Ukraine didn’t start the war but was invaded by Russia in 2014, with aggression dramatically escalating in 2022.
While US Special Representative Keith Kellogg claims no peace deal will be imposed on Ukraine, Trump’s words suggest otherwise. When asked if he considers Ukraine an equal partner in negotiations, Trump responded: “Hm, it’s an interesting question. I think they have to make peace.”
The Trump administration reportedly proposes a three-step plan: a ceasefire by Easter (20 April), Ukrainian elections despite martial law currently suspending all voting, and a final settlement. Though Trump claims the election proposal is “not a Russian thing… it’s coming from me,” his administration simultaneously seeks to lift restrictions on Moscow, including returning Russia to the G7.
For Ukraine, this approach potentially means facing an imposed settlement while 20% of its territory remains under Russian occupation. Euromaidan Press spoke with Ukrainian politicians and experts to understand what “freezing the war” would truly mean—and how it plays directly into Putin’s hands.
1. Russia’s five-year plan to rearm
All past experiences demonstrate that temporary freezes primarily benefit Russia, allowing it to regroup before launching renewed aggression. After annexing Crimea and parts of Donbas in 2014, Russia didn’t stop—it used these gains as staging grounds for further aggression, culminating in the full-scale invasion of 2022. What appeared to be a “frozen conflict” was actually a strategic pause during which Russia built up forces, tested Western resolve, and prepared for larger operations.
“If we freeze the war today, the Russian army will simply return in a few years, passing this burden to our children,” warns Volodymyr Sobipan, commander of the first air assault battalion of the 79th separate air assault brigade. “We expected a quick victory in 2014, not a frozen conflict. Now everyone, including our leadership, fears another long-term stalemate. We can’t burden our children with this war—it must be resolved now.”
Military experts point to Russia’s historical pattern of using ceasefires to strengthen its position. Oleksandr Merezhko, Ukraine’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee chair, draws parallels to Russia’s wars in Chechnya (1994-1996 and 1999-2000).
“Russia stopped the first Chechen war, used that period to strengthen its army, then invaded again and crushed Chechen independence. Putin will certainly use any ceasefire period the same way,” he told Euromaidan Press.
Mykhailo Samus, Deputy Director of the Center for Army, Conversion, and Disarmament Studies, is even more direct.
“Freezing the war under Trump’s pressure is merely the intermission before a second Russian-Ukrainian war. This renewed conflict will occur with very high probability as soon as the Trump factor disappears—while the Putin factor remains. Our plan must be to prepare for the next war,” he wrote on social media.
2. NATO credibility at trillion-dollar risk
When the US negotiates directly with Russia over Ukraine’s future without Ukraine at the table, it legitimizes Putin’s aggression and undermines the principle that countries determine their own fate. This dangerous precedent sends a clear message:military conquest works better than diplomatic engagement. Experts warn that European security architecture, built on post-Cold War principles that borders cannot be changed by force, crumbles with each concession to Russian demands.
Intelligence agencies across Europe share a sobering assessment: a frozen war in Ukraine represents not an end but a beginning. Denmark’s Defense Intelligence warns that Russia could be ready for a large-scale war in Europe within five years if the Ukraine war freezes. German intelligence projects potential Russian attacks on NATO countries by decade’s end. As President Zelenskyy warned, “the risk that Russia would occupy Europe is 100%—if the US pulls out of NATO.”
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte put this threat in stark financial terms: “If Ukraine loses… it will be a much, much higher price than what we are contemplating at this moment.” He estimated that rebuilding NATO’s credibility after a Russian victory would cost “trillions”—exponentially more than current support levels.
This creates a central paradox: short-term political pressure for peace competes against overwhelming long-term security interests.
“It would be cheaper for allies and NATO to help Ukraine reach its recognized borders. In the long-term perspective, this is true. But unfortunately, the world is short-term oriented,” Mykhailo Kolisnyk of the Kyiv School of Economics told Euromaidan Press.
Defense expert Mykhailo Samus warns of a fundamental shift in European security.
“The US will no longer protect Europeans from Moscow. This parameter must become central in forming Europe’s security and defense system. Europeans must finally accept Ukraine as an integral part of Europe, not a buffer, gray zone, or bargaining chip with Moscow,” he says.
European leaders have begun responding to this reality. Macron has called for increased European defense investment, while British Prime Minister Starmer announced willingness to deploy British troops to Ukraine to enforce any future peace agreement.
But these responses remain insufficient without addressing the central security question: Ukraine’s pathway to NATO. Experts agree that true lasting peace requires pushing Russia out of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders and securing Ukraine’s NATO membership. Otherwise, Putin’s “peace” merely temporarily pauses his ambitions.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed the shortsightedness of current approaches when he described NATO membership for Ukraine and a return to pre-2014 borders as “unrealistic” during the Ramstein meeting—effectively handing Russia its key demands before negotiations began.
3. False security: why demilitarized zones benefit only Moscow
Demilitarized zones without NATO protection create a dangerous illusion of stability. In a frozen conflict, Ukraine would not willingly cede territory, making the establishment of such a zone the most likely scenario. However, without ironclad guarantees, it would merely serve as a temporary pause before renewed hostilities.
President Zelenskyy has made it clear that Ukraine will never legally recognize Russian-occupied territories. Merezhko reinforced this stance: “Any agreement is worthless without removing territories from Russian control. We can’t regain them immediately, but acknowledging their loss is unacceptable.”
Yet, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed any possibility of territorial concessions, signaling that Moscow has no intention of negotiating in good faith.
Samus emphasized that Ukraine will not abandon its sovereignty. “Giving up territory is impossible,” he wrote. He highlighted key issues that Russia cannot ignore, such as exchanging the Kursk Oblast for Ukrainian land or linking territorial disputes to the status of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and Crimea. Russia would reassert dominance in the Black Sea without firm resolutions, even if the war is temporarily frozen.
Foreign policy analyst Oleksandr Kraiev warned that any “lasting peace” or war freeze must serve as a strategic pause for Ukraine—an opportunity to accelerate NATO and EU integration, rearm, and reform its military.
“Russia will use a frozen war to rebuild its forces and block our NATO membership. As long as Russia exists and Ukraine is outside NATO, the risk of war remains constant,” he told Euromaidan Press.
A prolonged freeze could weaken Ukraine’s mobilization potential. According to a recent Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation poll, around 20% of Ukrainians, particularly men and young people, would consider emigrating if travel restrictions were lifted. 25% of men and a third of those aged 18–29 expressed interest in leaving Ukraine. Such an exodus would cripple Ukraine’s ability to defend itself if hostilities resume.A ceasefire along the frontlines could lead to a “Minsk-3” agreement—a repeat of past diplomatic failures. The original Minsk agreements (2014-2015), brokered by Germany and France, attempted to halt fighting in Donbas but failed due to persistent Russian violations. Ukrainian officials warn that another Minsk-style deal would provide Russia time to rearm, legitimize territorial grabs, and undermine Ukraine’s military and international support. Trump’s current approach echoes this mistake—seeking to freeze the war without addressing Russia’s aggression.
Western leaders are split on the issue. French President Emmanuel Macron has cautioned that a weak ceasefire “could end up like the Minsk agreements.” Meanwhile, US envoy General Keith Kellogg argues that Europe should stay out, citing past failures. “Remember Minsk-2. European leaders were involved and utterly failed,” Kellogg stated at the Munich Security Conference.
Ukrainian experts unanimously reject any Minsk-style settlement. Merezhko warns that endless negotiations without guarantees would sap morale and encourage Western nations to reduce military aid.
“Some will say: ‘See? There is almost peace. Why keep sending weapons?’” Kraiev agrees, insisting that only NATO membership can secure Ukraine’s future. “A freeze without NATO is a death sentence. Russia will invade again.”
4. Identity erasure: six million Ukrainian hostages under occupation
Approximately 6 million Ukrainians, including 1.5 million children, remain under Russian occupation, according to Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine’s Minister for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories. For these millions, a frozen conflict would not mean peace but permanent subjugation to a regime actively erasing their identity.
“Freezing means that no one will stop Russia’s practice of erasing Ukrainian identity under occupation,” warns Alyona Luneva, advocacy director at the Zmina Human Rights Center, told Euromaidan Press. “In fact, it is now illegal to be Ukrainian in the occupied territories.”
Russia systematically implements forced Russification through brutal methods. Ukrainians face severe human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary detentions, and enforced disappearances. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission has documented 104 cases of enforced disappearance and 55 cases of torture affecting pro-Ukrainian activists, journalists, and Crimean Tatars since 2014.
“There are 150,000 open proceedings, massive violence of all kinds, mass deportations, infrastructure attacks, and poor detention conditions—all of this has occurred and will continue, but potentially on an even larger scale,” Luneva emphasizes.
Meanwhile, a massive population replacement strategy is underway. Russia has already deported approximately 2.8 million Ukrainians, including over 19,500 children, since February 2022.
“In Crimea, approximately one million Russians have entered the territory since the occupation began in 2014,” Luneva said. “Before the occupation, Crimea’s population was 2.2 million. This dramatically changes the demographic landscape.”
At least 314 Ukrainian children have been transferred to Russian families through initiatives designed to erase their Ukrainian identity—including changing their names and prohibiting the use of the Ukrainian language.
“Those who are disloyal must be either killed, evicted, deported, or scattered across the territory of the Russian Federation,” Kateryna Rashevska, an expert in deportation and assimilation, told Euromaidan Press. “The ‘Crimean scenario’ is now being clearly replicated in the newly occupied territories.”
Russia’s strategy extends to education, with over 5,500 military-patriotic clubs and 98 re-education camps established across occupied territories.
“Occupation authorities threatened to simply take children away from parents if they didn’t attend Russian schools,” Luneva notes. Children are taught that “Ukraine never existed” and that “they were always Russians.”
The militarization of Ukrainian children and their transformation into Russian soldiers threatens not only Ukraine but other European countries as well. “It will inevitably lead to a new cycle of aggression,” Rashevska warns.“It’s not difficult to predict what will happen after 5-10 years of occupation,” the expert note. “The example of Crimea confirms that instead of hundreds of thousands of displaced Ukrainians, Russian colonizers will creep in like reptiles – judges, teachers, doctors, security forces, cultural figures, businesspeople.”
This systematic identity erasure creates a long-term obstacle to peace. As Luneva concludes, “Freezing will not solve the problem. It will tighten control, allow more violations to be committed without punishment, and reduce ties with Ukraine, which will make the reintegration of these territories more difficult in the future.”
5. Stalemate destroys Ukraine’s economy
A frozen war would create long-term economic vulnerability for Ukraine, trapping the country in a state of perpetual investment uncertainty. Without a decisive resolution, Ukraine faces the prospect of diminished Western support, stalled reconstruction, and erosion of economic foundations.
“The most realistic scenario is a freeze at the current moment, some kind of status quo. Some investments, reconstruction, and economic growth will not only be based on military investments. However, all this will happen in a state of a temporary feeling,” explains Mykhailo Kolisnyk of KSE. “Any freezing of such conflict will inevitably lead to a renewal of war.”
Economic recovery depends entirely on internal and external investments, which would be severely limited under a frozen war. While some international investors might take risks, those who understand the geopolitical realities would hesitate.
“With prolonged freezing and occupation, investors who understand the existential nature of the war would not invest significantly,” Kolisnyk warns.
Countries with a deeper understanding of Russian intentions—like Britain, Poland, and the Baltic states—would be particularly cautious.
This investment paralysis coincides with other economic challenges: loss of industrial territories, continued military expenditures to maintain the border with Russia, and reduced workforce due to refugee outflows. The combined effect creates a scenario of economic stagnation similar to other frozen conflicts.
Internal economic activity would also suffer. While Ukrainians might initially embrace reconstruction with a short-term mindset—”danger is gone, let’s rebuild our cities”—this enthusiasm would confront harsh realities. Ukraine could face a Bosnia and Herzegovina scenario, where disputed territories languish in perpetual underdevelopment.
“It’s very sad. Such territories, disputed Ukrainian territories, look very sad because a minimal population remains – those who absolutely cannot change their location. Elderly people who are tied down. And semi-bandit businessmen who actually thrive in such an environment,” Kolisnyk explains. “But it won’t develop. The situation will be slightly better on the territory under Ukraine’s control, but everyone investing money here will wonder how long it will last. Therefore, I don’t expect sharp economic growth and uplift.”
This economic limbo represents the “least favorable option” compared to either a full Ukrainian victory or even a scenario where Russian internal collapse gives Ukraine a decade of stability. The fundamental issue remains: as long as the threat of renewed war hangs over Ukraine, sustainable economic development remains out of reach.
The inevitable cost of peace without victory
The Trump administration’s approach to ending the Ukraine war reveals concerning patterns beyond the five major risks already outlined. A controversial proposal demanding Ukraine allocate 50% of its natural resource revenues as “payment” for US support has met strong resistance from President Zelenskyy, who stated he could not “sell Ukraine away” without receiving meaningful security guarantees.
Further complicating matters, the US secured UN Security Council approval to resolve the war without attributing blame to Russia—deepening rifts with European allies alarmed by unilateral concessions to Moscow.
Ukrainian experts remain deeply skeptical of any agreement’s viability.
“Russia will never adhere to agreements with a country that it does not consider a country at all,” warns Oleksandr Kraiev. “From the Russians’ point of view, such agreements are worthless, and they will violate them immediately, as they violated the Minsk agreements.”
Kraiev adds that Trump’s inconsistency reveals a lack of coherent strategy: “His scenarios to end the war have changed four times. This shows that he does not really have a scenario.”
However, the Trump administration’s adoption of Russian narratives appears consistent. “What is worrying is that the Trump administration is already picking up on Kremlin narratives, including the idea of elections in Ukraine before a peace deal,” notes Doug Klein, political analyst at Razom for Ukraine.
The fundamental reality remains unchanged, says Merezhko: “As long as Putin remains in power, a lasting peace is not possible. Putin is only interested in one thing: Ukraine’s surrender in order to seize control of Ukraine and destroy its statehood.”
This assessment captures the essential trap of Trump’s approach—a “peace” that serves Putin’s strategic interests while endangering Ukraine’s existence. Any pause that leaves Russia in control of Ukrainian territory without NATO protection would not end the war but merely postpone its next, potentially more devastating phase. The choice facing Ukraine’s allies is not between war and peace but between supporting Ukraine now or facing greater costs and threats later.
Read more:
- Trump-Putin peace deal Ukraine 2025: Experts warn of Minsk 3.0 trap
- “Remember Minsk-2.” Europe should stay out of Ukraine peace talks, Kellogg says
- Mission accompli: Macron charms Trump, and pushes back against him
- Trump transforms Ukraine support into mineral extraction
- Europe spends € 2 billion a month on Russian oil and LNG—more than its aid to Ukraine
