Trump Steps Back from Mediation? The Truth Behind Ukraine War Talks After His Call with Putin
In May 2025, as the Russia–Ukraine war drags on with no end in sight, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s two-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin reignited global attention. While both leaders agreed on the need for “immediate ceasefire negotiations,” no concrete outcomes emerged. More notably, Trump signaled that the United States would "step back from the details" of any deal, hinting at a retreat from America’s traditional role as mediator — a move that has drawn significant controversy.
📞 A Two-Hour Call—But No Real Progress
On May 19 (local time), Trump posted on Truth Social that his call with Putin “went very well” and claimed that Russia and Ukraine would “begin immediate ceasefire talks.” However, he quickly followed up by stating that “the conditions of the negotiation should be left to the two countries,” making it clear that the U.S. would not directly intervene.
This was widely interpreted as a withdrawal from the role of peace mediator. Although Trump added that the U.S. might offer an “economic gift” if the two sides end the war, the language suggested a conditional incentive rather than firm diplomatic engagement. He stated, “Russia wants large-scale trade with the U.S., and Ukraine can benefit greatly in postwar reconstruction.”
Still, critics both in the U.S. and abroad have expressed concern that this position appears to favor Putin, potentially undermining a balanced negotiation process.
📰 U.S. Media Reaction: “A Game Rigged for Putin”
The New York Times reported that “President Trump has shifted from pushing for a ceasefire to encouraging bilateral talks between the warring countries,” effectively granting Putin a framework more favorable to Russia.
CNN noted that “Putin used the call to demonstrate that he doesn’t really need the American president anymore,” highlighting the Russian leader’s confidence. After the conversation, Putin stated, “What matters is removing the root cause of the crisis,” reiterating Russia’s long-standing narrative with no signs of compromise.
🤝 Ukraine’s Response: “A Deal Without America Is a Deal for Putin”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that he had spoken with Trump twice and emphasized that “the U.S. and Europe must remain at the negotiation table.” He warned that, “if America walks away, the talks will lose fairness—and only Putin will benefit.”
From Ukraine’s perspective, engaging in direct talks with Russia under current conditions would be dangerously close to surrender. During a recent working-level meeting in Istanbul on May 16, the only agreement reached was a mutual prisoner exchange (1,000 on each side), with no progress on broader issues.
🕰️ Historical Context: The Importance of U.S. Mediation
Since the beginning of the Russia–Ukraine war, the United States has been a key supporter of Ukraine—militarily, economically, and diplomatically. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. provided tens of billions of dollars in military aid, with NATO and the European Union following suit.
In this context, Trump’s comments mark not just a diplomatic retreat, but potentially a turning point in the geopolitical structure of the war. With Russia pressing forward on territorial claims over Crimea and Donbas, the shift in Washington’s stance could deal a serious blow to Ukraine’s diplomatic leverage.
🌐 The Implications Behind Trump’s “Economic Gift” Offer
Trump’s offer of a postwar economic incentive—particularly to Russia—has been interpreted as part of a “transactional peace strategy.” This approach prioritizes economic incentives over military pressure to bring Putin to the negotiating table.
However, this strategy has been heavily criticized for potentially rewarding the aggressor while sidelining the victim. If reconstruction aid is offered without accountability for war crimes, it could also weaken the authority of institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC).
🔮 What Lies Ahead: Ceasefire or Cold War Redux?
The Russia–Ukraine war is no longer a localized conflict. It has evolved into a major geopolitical issue involving European security architecture, NATO’s future, U.S. global strategy, and the world’s energy and food supply chains.
If the United States disengages or adopts a “conditional involvement” stance, the democratic world risks losing its footing in the postwar order. Zelensky’s warning that “Putin will win if the U.S. walks away” reflects not just emotional urgency but a calculated strategic reality.
✍️ In Closing
Trump’s call with Putin may outwardly seem like a step toward ceasefire, but beneath the surface, it signals a reduction in U.S. mediation and a potential tilt toward a negotiation environment favorable to Russia.
Whatever path the international community takes, it is crucial to remember: this is not a regional skirmish—it is a pivotal juncture in the global order. A U.S. or European withdrawal could open the door for Putin while leaving Ukraine increasingly isolated.
Now is the time for the world to scrutinize both Trump’s intentions and Putin’s strategy—and rebuild a negotiation framework grounded in justice and balance. Peace does not begin with the power of force, but with a fair and principled playing field.
