According to Yuri Ushakov, an advisor to Vladimir Putin, the five-hour discussion between the Russian President and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Tuesday yielded “no compromise version of a peace settlement.” This is not surprising, as Putin has consistently pursued maximalist goals to seize Ukrainian territory and eliminate its sovereignty since his initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, demonstrating a lack of good faith in negotiations.

While the details of the Kremlin talks remain , it seems Putin once again on the crucial issues of territory, specifically the placement of a cease-fire line, and security guarantees for Ukraine. Following significant diplomatic efforts, U.S. negotiators are departing the Kremlin with minimal progress.

How did this situation develop, and what are the next steps?

Since the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump has been attempting to broker an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine. After several unsuccessful attempts—such as the in August or the proposed Budapest Summit in October days after being announced—the U.S., Ukraine, and Europe collaborated to develop potential elements of a deal to halt the conflict. This plan, which was worked on in Geneva two weekends prior and further refined in Florida , was presented to Putin by Witkoff, accompanied by Trump’s son-in-law and diplomatic advisor, Jared Kushner.

Trump’s push for a peace agreement is justified. His statements regarding the crucial elements of such a deal have occasionally been insightful, such as his that the current frontline should serve as the cease-fire line and that Ukraine from Europe and the U.S.

However, the Administration’s strategy has been inconsistent, and its negotiation methods have been flawed. Witkoff created an initial 28-point plan that included substantial Russian input . This gave his Russian counterpart, Kirill Dmitriev, two opportunities to influence the negotiations: at the beginning and during the actual talks, which was a tactical error. Furthermore, divisions within the Trump Administration, between those more supportive of Ukraine and those less so, have been apparent, and lines of authority have been unclear. Is Secretary of State Marco Rubio responsible for the U.S. position? He was and . However, he was not present in Moscow for the crucial discussions with Putin.

The Administration has been conducting negotiations publicly and internally, with occasional tensions with Ukraine and infighting that are easily noticeable. The Kremlin has been in a favorable position to remain passive, maintain its maximalist demands, and await further concessions. These are typical Kremlin negotiation strategies, and it appears Putin employed them with Witkoff.

Nonetheless, negotiations could still bring an end to the war. This could be achieved through a comprehensive agreement that includes a cease-fire, ideally along the existing frontlines; some form of acknowledgement regarding the of some Ukrainian territory without officially recognizing Russian annexation; and separate Western security assurances for Ukraine that exclude Russia as a “guarantor” with veto power. There would likely be additional components, possibly including the easing of sanctions on Russia if it adheres to the agreement’s terms. Alternatively, and perhaps more realistically, the war could end with a simple cease-fire in place, potentially accompanied by the commencement of negotiations for a comprehensive peace—talks that may or may not succeed.

The Trump Administration must now determine how to respond to the Kremlin’s obstruction. To end the war, the U.S. must cease seeking concessions that will appease Putin. Instead, it needs to strengthen its negotiating position by applying and maintaining increased pressure on Russia. Otherwise, Putin will continue to delay, mislead, and , all the while and gradually escalating to instill fear and create uncertainty.

The U.S. has numerous options available to do so: the recent have negatively impacted Russia’s economy and, with rigorous enforcement, could further weaken it. The Europeans to utilize €140 billion in frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. The U.S. and Europeans could collaborate on security support for Ukraine and consider providing new and more advanced weaponry—sending a clear message to Moscow that stalling negotiations will not improve their situation. And, in particular, the Trump Administration should stop fluctuating between and, less frequently, . Putin initiated the war and is the primary impediment to ending it.

The U.S. has repeatedly attempted to pursue the Kremlin with new proposals without having the leverage to overcome Kremlin rejectionism. This approach is ineffective. However, if the U.S., in collaboration with Europe, utilizes its resources, Trump could end the war and claim a victory. The beneficiaries would be Ukraine, Europe, the U.S., and the entire free world.

“`