Questions Mount Over Trump’s Claims of Private Talks With Putin on Ukraine War
With no independent confirmation of a Trump-Putin call, experts fear that US pressure could force Ukraine into making major concessions
President Donald Trump claims that he has spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, according to an exclusive interview with the New York Post aboard Air Force One on Friday.
When pressed on how many times the two leaders had spoken, Trump declined to give specifics. “I’d better not say,” he remarked, though he suggested that Putin “does care” about the loss of life on the battlefield.
The US president also reiterated that he had a concrete plan to end the war but refused to disclose any details. However, there is no independent confirmation of a phone call between Trump and Putin, as neither Moscow nor Russian sources have reported such a conversation.
Trump’s statements raise significant questions about the feasibility of his approach and the potential implications for both Ukraine and Russia. To better understand these dynamics, The Media Line asked experts to weigh in on what a Washington-brokered peace deal might look like, how it could reshape global alliances, and the motivations driving the key players involved.
Benjamin Miller, professor of international relations and director of the National Security Center at the University of Haifa, emphasized that Putin is likely to anticipate better relations with the current US president compared to former President Joe Biden. “Trump is not that committed to protecting all the interests of Ukraine, especially its territorial integrity and sovereignty. In this sense, Putin might expect a better deal for Russia under Trump than under Biden,” Miller explained to The Media Line.
He noted that President Trump’s overall approach to authoritarian regimes differs significantly from that of his predecessor, who positioned himself as a defender of democracy against powers like Russia, China, and Iran. Miller added that unlike Biden, “Trump, on the other hand, is much more tolerant towards authoritarian leaders, particularly Putin.”
The deal under Trump would be more favorable to Russia. For instance, the 20% of Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia might remain under Russian control, as Trump is likely to be more tolerant of such an arrangement than Biden.
According to Miller, Putin faces a dual consideration: the military progress Russia has made, albeit slowly and at a high cost, versus the expectation of improved US-Russia relations under a Trump administration. “The deal under Trump would be more favorable to Russia. For instance, the 20% of Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia might remain under Russian control, as Trump is likely to be more tolerant of such an arrangement than Biden,” he said.
The US president, Miller argued, is highly motivated to end the war and present it as a major achievement. “He has repeatedly claimed that under Biden, the world has become chaotic with multiple conflicts, including the Ukraine war. President Trump wants to demonstrate that he alone can bring peace and stability.”
However, Miller pointed out that while President Trump seeks a deal, he also does not want to be perceived as weak. “If Ukraine is forced to surrender all occupied territory, Trump’s critics might accuse him of capitulating to Putin, which would undermine his image as a strong leader,” he said. “So, he must balance his desire to end the war with the need to avoid appearing overly conciliatory.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
On the Russian side, Miller explained that Putin must weigh continued military gains against the benefits of striking a deal with the American president. “The Russian military is slowly advancing, despite heavy casualties and equipment losses. Putin may prefer to wait and see if he can extract better terms from a Trump presidency rather than rush into an agreement now,” he said.
Russian political analyst and commentator Fedor Krasheninnikov told The Media Line that Trump’s actions could be interpreted as signaling to Russia that the US is open to concessions. “For example, halting funding for Ukrainian programs—considering how much was previously allocated—was likely a pleasant surprise for Putin,” Krasheninnikov said. “Many of these programs were creating significant challenges for him, and now they are being cut without any reciprocal concessions from Moscow. Meanwhile, Russia continues its offensive, albeit slowly and at great cost.”
Regarding the US president’s potential strategy, Krasheninnikov agreed that he may be seeking a deal that forces Ukraine into compromise rather than exerting pressure on Putin. “Trump’s idea of ‘constructive negotiations’ likely involves discussing with Putin the terms under which Russia would agree to stop further advances in Ukraine. He would then present these conditions to [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and say, ‘Here are the terms, accept them,’” he explained.
Krasheninnikov questioned the extent of Trump’s leverage over Russia, stating, “I don’t see what pressure points Trump has against Putin or Russia right now. However, we all understand the leverage he has over Ukraine. If Trump wants to force Zelenskyy into concessions, he has many tools at his disposal.”
Trump might want to wash his hands of Ukraine, frame it as a European issue, and let European nations handle it. If peace is not achieved, he may leave Ukraine to face Russia alone, while Europe, already burdened with its own problems, struggles to respond.
The American president’s strategy appears to be centered on minimizing US involvement in Ukraine, shifting responsibility to Europe, and potentially leaving Ukraine to negotiate from a weakened position, Krasheninnikov said. “Trump might want to wash his hands of Ukraine, frame it as a European issue, and let European nations handle it,” he explained. “If peace is not achieved, he may leave Ukraine to face Russia alone, while Europe, already burdened with its own problems, struggles to respond. And later, if things go badly, he could simply say, ‘Not my problem, it was up to Europe to support Ukraine.’”
When asked about Trump’s willingness to engage in negotiations with Iran, Krasheninnikov highlighted the potential implications for Russia. “Trump’s Middle East policy is difficult to decipher, but if he truly wants negotiations with Iran, it could serve as a bargaining chip with Putin,” he said. “He could demand that Russia cut ties with Iran as a major concession. This wouldn’t impact Ukraine directly, but it would be a major shift in global geopolitics.”
Krasheninnikov argued that Iran could be the intended audience of President Trump’s demonstration of American strength, as it is a significant but nonnuclear regional power. “Unlike Russia or China—both nuclear-armed superpowers—Iran is a more viable target for Trump’s show of strength. Iran is unpopular even among many Muslim nations. If Trump wants to prove that ‘America is first’ and demonstrate his dominance, Iran presents a more feasible target than Russia,” he said.
Analyzing the American president’s recent statement about being open to negotiations with Iran, Krasheninnikov said: “Trump has made it clear that he prefers ending wars rather than starting them. In the case of Iran, his focus will likely be on reaching an agreement over its nuclear program rather than initiating military action.”
He further suggested that President Trump would aim to secure a stronger deal than the 2015 nuclear agreement brokered by then-President Barack Obama. “Trump will work hard to present any new deal as a major success, demonstrating that he negotiated a better agreement than Obama,” he said.
Miller pointed out that Iran is currently in a weaker position due to its losses in the war with Israel. “Hezbollah, a key deterrent for Iran against Israel, is now significantly weakened,” he said. “Syria, once an ally, has also become less reliable for Iran. Additionally, Israel’s recent military actions have exposed Iran’s vulnerabilities, particularly in air defense. This gives Trump more leverage in negotiations, as Iran may prefer a diplomatic agreement over the risk of a military confrontation.”
He concluded that Trump’s broader foreign policy framework is focused on avoiding war whenever possible. “While military action remains an option, Trump is more likely to prioritize diplomacy, particularly in negotiations with Iran. His overall goal will be to secure deals that allow him to claim success without direct military engagement,” he said.
Discussing Russia’s potential stance in negotiations, Krasheninnikov emphasized that Putin is unlikely to agree to a simple ceasefire. “Putin has repeatedly stated what Russia wants: a peace agreement that officially recognizes new borders,” he said. “It’s not just about freezing the conflict; he wants Ukraine to acknowledge that certain regions are no longer part of the country. That includes Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, and occupied parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. If Ukraine agrees, then sanctions lose their justification. That would be an ideal outcome for Putin.”
Krasheninnikov further explained that Russia’s constitutional changes provide some room for maneuvering. “The Russian Constitution now includes these Ukrainian regions, but without specifying precise borders. So, Putin has some flexibility. He could push for full control of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, or settle for the areas he already occupies while leaving the major cities under Ukrainian control,” he said. “That might be his ‘middle-ground’ approach.”
The sudden halt of USAID programs was already a demonstration of how quickly things can change. If military assistance is cut off as well, Ukraine would be left in a dire situation, giving Russia a significant window of opportunity.
As for US pressure on Ukraine, Krasheninnikov noted that Washington has multiple levers of influence. “It’s not just military aid—humanitarian assistance, USAID programs, and economic support are all crucial for Ukraine’s survival. The sudden halt of USAID programs was already a demonstration of how quickly things can change. If military assistance is cut off as well, Ukraine would be left in a dire situation, giving Russia a significant window of opportunity,” Krasheninnikov asserted.
Regarding Europe’s role, Krasheninnikov argued that European nations have been largely reactive. “Many European countries were vocal in their support for Ukraine under Biden, but if the US steps back, their enthusiasm may fade,” he said. “Countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece have never been deeply invested in this war. Even France and Germany face domestic challenges that might limit their long-term commitment.”
He warned that a US withdrawal could embolden European populists, who might seize the opportunity to argue against continued financial and military support for Ukraine, especially as American backing fades. “If the US stops supporting Ukraine, populist politicians in Europe will capitalize on it, questioning why their countries should bear the financial burden when America has walked away. Leaders who remain committed to Ukraine will face increasing domestic pressure, both from Russian influence and from American-backed isolationist narratives,” he said.
Krasheninnikov described President Trump’s strategy as a potential game changer in the war. “If US aid stops and Ukraine’s defenses weaken, the front line could collapse, and no one knows where the next line of resistance will be drawn,” he said. “The question is whether Europe can compensate for America’s absence—and right now, that seems unlikely.”
