It was a big week for President Donald Trump’s attempts to end the war in Ukraine. After a two-hour call with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, Trump met in the White House with Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday. Pundits are already busy trying to assess who came out ahead. Did Putin’s outreach win Trump back to Russia’s side or does the American President continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to achieve a battlefield victory?

The answer, it seems, is none of the above. Instead, reality is the true winner of the latest diplomatic scramble, having successfully dealt a firm blow to the magical thinking afflicting all major stakeholders in the current war.

The wake-up call was harshest for Zelensky. The Ukrainian delegation came to Washington projecting confidence that President Trump would endorse their plan to go back on the offensive and provide Kyiv with long-range Tomahawk missiles that would allow Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory. Trump declined both requests. He said that he hoped the war could be ended without the use of Tomahawks, made no new commitments of military aid, and called on Zelensky to instead make a deal that would bring peace.

Trump’s position should have been expected. Despite all the talk about Tomahawks in Kyiv and in Washington, these missiles were never truly on the table for Ukraine. Not only does Kyiv have no way to launch the long-range missile, but US stockpiles are so constrained that the Pentagon would surely object to giving any up. Trump’s rhetoric around Tomahawks resembled his earlier warnings about harsher sanctions on Russia — a threat that he does not want to make good on.

Ukraine’s hopes of a new offensive were equally fantastical. US and European defence production and remaining stockpiles are too limited to support another offensive campaign. More importantly, Ukraine’s manpower shortages would make such an operation impossible.

Trump’s rejection of the Ukrainian requests is already being described as a concession to Moscow, but this is unfair. Trump’s assessment that a handful of long-range missiles or another round of sanctions is not going to shift the war’s trajectory is reasonable. So is his belief that Ukraine needs a ceasefire now, even if it does not want one.

For Putin, some reality is also dawning. That he initiated the call to Trump suggests that he understands just how important it is that he keep the US President engaged in the diplomatic process. Only Trump can deliver the political goals that Putin has set for this war, including an end to Nato expansion and a dialogue about Europe’s future security architecture.

With Putin, too, Trump pushed for a ceasefire along the current line of contact, seemingly rebuffing Russia’s demand that Ukraine cede the rest of Donbas. As Russia’s military gains slow down, Putin may be beginning to understand that his hope of taking the Donbas militarily is fading. This realisation will only increase the importance of Trump’s involvement, however. If territorial objectives are out of reach, then the political ones that require Trump’s acquiescence become crucial.

President Trump also seems to be grasping some of the harsh dynamics of the Russia-Ukraine war. Trump admitted that although he thought the conflict would be the easiest to solve when he returned to power, he had been wrong. Despite Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s promise that “more firepower” would be used to bring Russia to the negotiating table, Trump seemed to understand that US munitions stockpiles are limited. “We want Tomahawks too,” he told reporters. On the other hand, his post-meeting statement did not demand unacceptable territorial compromises on Ukraine’s part, something he had seemed open to this summer. This may be a sign that he now understands that this is a redline for Kyiv.

It would be too optimistic to say that this week’s events moved the end of the war closer. Still, each side’s gradual acceptance of conflict’s realities is a positive development. After all, an end to the war is only possible when all parties come to terms with the fact that an imperfect armistice is best of all attainable outcomes.

---

Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.

jekavanagh

---