Trump-Putin Negotiations: A Diplomatic Shift with Far-Reaching Consequences

By excluding Ukraine and European allies from negotiations with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump is breaking with traditional U.S. diplomacy, a move that experts warn could weaken transatlantic relations and bolster Moscow’s position.

A Landmark Conversation

On Wednesday, February 12, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin for nearly 90 minutes—a record-breaking exchange between Washington and Moscow since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Their discussion resulted in an agreement to launch “immediate” negotiations on Ukraine and a commitment to an in-person meeting.

“This is a major departure from American diplomacy,” explains defense analyst General Jérôme Pellistrandi. “Trump appears to be bypassing Ukraine and Europe entirely in these discussions.”

Beyond the Ukraine conflict, this conversation signals a historic shift in European and global geopolitics, raising concerns about the future of the transatlantic alliance.

A Break with U.S. Policy Since Russia’s Invasion

With a single phone call, Donald Trump dismantled the approach maintained by his predecessor, Joe Biden. While Biden adhered to the principle of “no discussions about Ukraine without Ukraine,” Trump has taken the opposite path, unilaterally initiating talks with Putin before informing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“The conversation went very well. Zelensky, like President Putin, wants PEACE,” Trump stated in a brief message—much shorter than the one he dedicated to his call with the Kremlin leader.

The Kremlin, in turn, portrayed the discussion as a step toward finding a “long-term solution” to the war through “peace talks.” However, experts view this as a strategic advantage for Moscow, allowing Putin to dictate terms.

“Trump is negotiating directly with Putin, with Ukraine relegated to the sidelines,” says General Pellistrandi. “For Trump, Putin is the key interlocutor, while everything else is secondary.”

Despite criticism, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended Trump’s initiative, arguing that it is not a betrayal of Ukraine but rather a recognition of the global commitment to a negotiated peace.

Concessions to Moscow at Kyiv’s Expense

Following the call, Putin appears to be in a position of strength for upcoming negotiations. Trump’s willingness to make early “concessions” to Russia has been met with concern and skepticism.

“It is regrettable that President Trump has already conceded ground to Putin before the negotiations even begin,” said German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. He argued that discussions should have included topics such as Ukraine’s potential NATO membership or territorial disputes from the outset.

Washington, however, has signaled that an expanded NATO for Ukraine is off the table. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth explicitly stated that Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders, including Crimea, are no longer a realistic objective.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul criticized Trump’s approach, questioning why the administration would offer territorial concessions and NATO exclusion before negotiations even start. “Having negotiated with Russians before, I can say one thing: you never give them anything for free.”

For geopolitical analyst Ulrich Bounat, Trump’s primary goal is simply to end the war—at any cost. “He is willing to make any concession necessary to achieve a ceasefire,” he explains.

Moscow is well aware of this dynamic. Since Trump’s election last November, Russia has accelerated its military offensive, aiming to seize more territory before negotiations, securing a stronger bargaining position.

However, experts warn that any peace deal reached under such circumstances will be unstable and short-lived. “Putin’s fundamental goals remain unchanged: complete control over Ukraine and a revision of post-Cold War borders,” says Maria Snegovaya of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

European Allies Sidelined

European leaders have expressed outrage over being excluded from the negotiations. Having provided significant financial and military aid to Ukraine, they are demanding a seat at the table.

“The Ukraine war is happening on our continent, and we must be part of the discussions,” stated a joint declaration from the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, the UK, and Ukraine.

Michael McFaul also warned that any negotiations excluding European nations would be fundamentally flawed, drawing parallels to the failed Minsk Agreements.

“Europeans and Ukrainians fear being confronted with a fait accompli,” explains Bounat. The U.S. expects Europe to provide Ukraine with robust security guarantees—without relying on American troops.

This shift raises serious concerns about NATO’s future. “If the U.S. tells Europe to handle security on its own, what happens when a NATO country is attacked?” Bounat questions.

Trump-Putin Meeting: A Political Win for Moscow

During the call, Trump and Putin agreed to meet in Saudi Arabia in the near future. The Kremlin also announced plans for reciprocal visits between the U.S. and Russia, a diplomatic breakthrough for Putin.

No U.S. president has set foot on Russian soil since Barack Obama attended the 2013 G20 summit in St. Petersburg. The last Trump-Putin meeting was in Helsinki in 2018.

“This is a significant political victory for Putin,” says General Pellistrandi. “It rehabilitates him on the global stage.”

Bounat agrees: “This call restores Putin’s legitimacy. It’s a rapid reintegration into international diplomacy.”

Since launching the war in Ukraine, Putin has been ostracized, particularly after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against him in 2023.

Yet, with Trump now treating him as an equal, Russia is regaining diplomatic leverage. Putin’s ultimate goal? To reshape European security architecture—without European input.

Moscow has made it clear that future talks will address Europe’s security concerns as a whole, framing the war in Ukraine as merely one front in a larger battle against Western influence.

A Fragile Peace, or a Dangerous Precedent?

While a ceasefire may be within reach, the broader implications are unsettling. European officials warn that a Trump-brokered peace could resemble appeasement strategies of the past, leaving Ukraine vulnerable.

Benjamin Haddad, France’s Minister for European Affairs, insists that a sustainable peace cannot exist without Ukraine and Europe at the table. “Any backroom deal will fail,” he warns.

Similarly, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas criticized what she called a “Munich-style appeasement strategy”, drawing comparisons to the West’s failure to stand up to Nazi Germany in 1938.

If the U.S. continues this trajectory, Europe may be forced to assert itself diplomatically and militarily. “If we merely insist on having a voice without real action, negotiations will move forward without us,” warns Bounat.

With Washington signaling a potential disengagement, Europe faces a moment of truth: will it step up as a security guarantor, or remain a passive observer?

For now, one thing is clear—Moscow has much to gain, while Kyiv and Europe risk losing everything.