Russia-Ukraine war: How will it end?

As Russia’s war in Ukraine enters its fourth year, civilians in its capital, Kyiv, have endured relentless pressure. In the past week alone, hundreds of Russian drones have attacked the region at night, answered by the crack of machine guns and missiles from Ukraine’s air defence system. Exhausted faces are everywhere, says Francis Farrell, an Australian who reports for a news outlet in the capital. “But there’s defiance,” he says. “It’s a Ukrainian mentality to turn up the music when the air defence starts working.”

Now, there’s another wildcard in the mix. Overnight, Ukraine’s relations with its most powerful ally, the United States, have been turned upside down. Ahead of what was meant to be a historic deal between Ukraine and the United States, talks between Donald Trump and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, dramatically broke down on live television, throwing Ukraine’s security into doubt.

Even before this latest blow-up, Ukrainians had been increasingly concerned about Trump’s apparently diminishing appetite to provide the beleaguered nation with military support. “The reaction here is a lot of emotions,” says Farrell, 27, who studied international relations and made his way to Ukraine the week before Russia’s full-scale invasion. “I mean, first and foremost, it’s betrayal in what we thought the United States of America meant on the world stage, not only in real support but in terms of values of freedom and democracy.”

In the second month of his second presidency, how is Trump changing Ukraine’s situation? What do minerals have to do with it? And what scenarios could end the war?

What has changed since Trump became president?

When Donald Trump was elected for a second term in November, many Ukrainians were in two minds about what it could mean. “Some people were very worried,” says Farrell. “And other people were like, ‘Well, anything’s better than what we’ve got at the moment.’” Trump was full of hubris – “I would get [the war] ended in a period of 24 hours,” he said last May – but perhaps he would arrive at a position that was tougher on Russia than Biden. Yet in past weeks, Farrell says, “there’s no more of that wishful thinking”.

In February, Trump said he had a phone call with Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, where they agreed to negotiations to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine. US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, a longtime friend of Trump, met with Putin for a three-and-a-half hour “trust building” discussion in Moscow during a trip to free an imprisoned American and later joined US and Russian officials at a meeting in Saudi Arabia.

After that meeting, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the two sides had agreed broadly to restore staff at their embassies in Washington and Moscow after years of expulsions, to explore closer economic co-operation and to discuss what an end to the Ukraine war could look like.

The discussions marked a dramatic shift. During the Biden administration, “there was virtually no contact with the Russians at all, except through back channels”, says Matthew Sussex, associate professor at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. “Normalising relations with a dictator is a 180-degree turn from providing weapons so Ukrainians can defend themselves.”

‘If you don’t have one of the parties fighting at the table, how can you expect them to agree to stop fighting?’

Matthew Sussex, ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed anger at the lack of any invitation to attend the Riyadh meeting. Says Sussex: “It’s a non-starter because if you don’t have one of the parties fighting at the table, how can you expect them to agree to stop fighting? Biden was supportive of Ukraine; he gave them just enough military equipment, I think, to stay in the fight but not to win. Trump has changed it completely, by not just shifting to a sort of neutral position but almost looking like he’s switched sides.”

The possibility of the US resuming economic co-operation with Russia, which is currently under sanctions, is another problematic prospect, says Mick Ryan, a military studies senior fellow at the Lowy Institute. “The US has led the international sanctions regime. That has hurt Russia, and if the US was to pull out of that, which it probably would be doing by economically collaborating with Russia, it would undermine the entire sanctions regime.”

Meanwhile, the US has signalled it is considering dialling back military aid for Ukraine. Trump’s Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told the Ukraine Defence Contact Group – the alliance of 57 countries responsible for sending military aid – that securing Ukraine was up to European members, not the US, and any peacekeeping troops deployed should not involve NATO.

“To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine,” he said. “Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine.”

This shift has shaken Europe, says Sussex. According to the Kiel Institute in Germany, the US spent $180 billion on aid for Ukraine in 2024, including for military, humanitarian and financial purposes – the biggest allocation by a single country. Europe as a whole spent $208 billion for the same period. The US also has a military presence in some European countries.

“Europeans have been spending well below 2 per cent of GDP on defence. And Americans have been paying above 3 per cent. So they are, basically, paying for the defence of Europe,” Sussex says. “This is the sort of hallelujah moment for them. If it’s not now, then when will it be that Europe will have to pick up the tab and pay for their own security and defence?”

The Trump administration has also made several overt signals it has abandoned the principles that drove Biden’s stance on the war. Trump, on his social media platform, called Zelensky a “dictator without elections” – a reference to the suspension of elections because of Ukraine’s martial law. On the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion this week, the US refused to support a Europe-led resolution in the United Nations General Assembly to condemn Russian aggression and call for an immediate withdrawal of Russian forces, joining Russia, Belarus and North Korea.

So the scene was set for Zelensky’s visit to Washington DC on February 28. He flew in to sign a hard-fought deal granting the US access to Ukraine’s rich deposits of critical minerals (more on that below). Ahead of what should have been a set-piece formal affair, however, Zelensky met with Trump, Vice President JD Vance and others in the Oval Office for an unscripted discussion in front of live cameras – which rapidly descended into chaos.

The context appeared to be Ukraine’s willingness or otherwise to discuss a ceasefire with Russia, which Trump has been impatient to broker. But when Zelensky began asking whether Vladimir Putin could be trusted, Trump and Vance exploded, shouting that the Ukrainian leader was being ungrateful, had not said “thank you” enough and had “disrespected” the Oval Office. Trump bellowed: “You’re gambling with lives of millions of people, you’re gambling with World War Three and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to this country.” Zelensky left the White House shortly afterwards, abandoning a scheduled press conference and having not signed the minerals deal, which now looks seriously in doubt of ever happening.

Trump later posted on social media: “We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”

Some watchers suggested it had been a deliberate ambush. “Trump and Vance appear to have entered the meeting with the intention of berating Zelensky and drawing him into an argument as a pretext for the diplomatic break,” observed Jonathan Chait in The Atlantic. Sussex agrees: “It does look as though it was a set-up to prompt Zelensky to argue back at Trump, and it seems that the United States has decided that, you know, Zelensky is not someone that they can deal with. Whether or not this works in the US’s favour, time will tell.”

What did a minerals deal have to do with it?

“I don’t do it for the money,” Trump began his 1987 business advice slash memoir The Art of the Deal. “I’ve got enough, much more than I’ll ever need. I do it to do it. Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.” As a property developer, Trump struck advantageous deals all day long, if you believe the breathless pace of his book, always trying to find the best angle on a concrete pour here, a corporate headquarters there.

It appears he is now bringing the same instincts to bear on US foreign policy, except this time he is strong-arming nations. “Despite an isolationist economic agenda, President Trump has been surprisingly interventionist in his approach to foreign policy since assuming a second term,” says Jessica Genauer, an expert in international conflict at Flinders University.

In January, Trump phoned Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to try to persuade her to sell or hand over the territory of Greenland (she didn’t). He’s laid claim to Gaza, saying the US will own it, “level the site”, and “make sure something really spectacular is done”. And then he negotiated US access to deposits of critical minerals and other valuable resources in Ukraine.

‘Signing a significant deal for US access to Ukraine’s mineral elements will be presented by Trump as an economic victory for the US.’

Jessica Genauer, Flinders University

Ukraine’s significant mineral deposits include graphite, lithium, copper, uranium, rare earth metals and titanium. A minerals deal was originally Zelensky’s proposal, essentially offering access to Ukraine’s underground wealth in return for support to fight the Russians, described as a “special agreement for the joint protection of the country’s critical resources, as well as joint investment and use of this economic potential”.

But Trump wanted better terms, countering with a demand for $US500 billion ($793 billion) worth of mineral rights in exchange for past aid, with no guarantee of future military assist­ance. “Trump is motivated primarily by domestic interests,” Genauer tells us. “Trump wants to present the deal to the US population as a strong move for America that will boost the economy and further his agenda of Making America Great Again.”

To that end, Trump sent US Treasury Secretary and former hedge-fund billionaire Scott Bessent to Kyiv. “Bessent pushed the paper across the table, demanding that Zelensky sign it,” sources revealed to The Wall Street Journal. “Zelensky took a quick look and said he would discuss it with his team. Bessent then pushed the paper closer to Zelensky. ‘You really need to sign this’.” The message couldn’t have been clearer, says Bruce Wolpe at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre: “If you want the United States to be on your side, you better sign this deal.”

Zelensky didn’t, saying he had been pressured to sign with little time to assess the details. In response, Trump turned up the heat, publicly stating the Ukraine leader “better move fast, or he is not going to have a country left”, incorrectly claiming that Ukraine had started the war with Russia, saying that Zelensky had done a “terrible job” and falsely claiming that his public approval rating was as low as 4 per cent (it was in the mid-50s). “Zelensky has been cornered, he is in a desperate situation,” says Flavia Bellieni Zimmermann, lecturer in public policy at the University of Melbourne.

The negotiations dragged on, with Zelensky continuing to push for a guarantee of military aid. But by late February, a deal had been agreed and Zelensky flew to Washington to sign the first of what was supposed to be a two-part settlement. According to those who saw a draft of the agreement, many of the more onerous clauses originally demanded by the US had been deleted; now, the document was to bind the two nations to create a joint reconstruction investment fund, with Ukraine contributing 50 per cent of the revenues from future government-owned resource projects. Security interests – what Zelensky wanted from the deal – were to be addressed at a later date.

‘This is a sort of negotiation in reverse: Trump wants to negotiate about post-conflict access to Ukrainian minerals whereas the key stumbling block is actually ending the conflict in the first place.’

Matthew Sussex, ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre

“It’s important to remember that there were some in the Ukrainian government who actually were excited about the Trump administration,” says Jared Mondschein, director of research at Sydney University’s United States Studies Centre. “They felt that the openly transactional nature of it would be easier to navigate than a Biden administration, which, many thought, wanted Ukraine to not lose the war, but also not win the war against Russia’s aggression. [Trump] was perhaps simpler to navigate than the Biden administration, which had seemingly conflicting messaging coming from it.”

More broadly, Bruce Wolpe suggests the deal revealed much about the current direction of American foreign policy. “Trump is not a president who wields idealism,” he says. “Trump is a president who wields American imperialism and economic nationalism. He wants to make sure that the United States is getting the tribute it deserves. Its role in the world is not peacekeeping. Its role is to be the strongest economic power on Earth. That’s what is being said here.”

Now, however, it remains to be seen whether it will ever go ahead. Says Sussex: “Zelensky was basically, I think, baited into talking about security and security guarantees. He said, before he left, that he was going to ask the United States whether they continued to support Ukraine or not, quite bluntly. But I think it highlights that this is a sort of negotiation in reverse: Trump wants to negotiate about post-conflict access to Ukrainian minerals whereas the key stumbling block is actually ending the conflict in the first place.” He adds: “Trump will say that Zelensky and, by extension, Europe, don’t want peace, and he may even use that as an excuse, a pretext, to draw down participation in NATO.”

How might the war end?

No doubt Vladimir Putin watched the exchange between Trump and Zelensky with delight. He will have also been sifting recent comments from the Trump administration about ebbing US willingness to support the security of European countries and the need for NATO’s European members to step up instead.

Putin might not yet have an endgame in mind, suggests Robert Horvath, a specialist in Russian politics at La Trobe University. “He’s not a strategic thinker, but he’s very good at tactics. He thinks one move ahead, not three moves ahead. Certainly, he has been doing everything that he can do to promote Trump and promote disorder and polarisation in the United States and elsewhere in the Western world.”

Former diplomat Kyle Wilson, a Russia expert at ANU, believes “there is no end to the war while Putin is alive and in command in Russia”. “He has said, repeatedly, ‘There is no such country as Ukraine, there is no such people’ and his actions have made it very plain.” (Wilson, who translated conversations between Putin and foreign minister Gareth Evans during the Keating government, and later for prime minister Tony Abbott, says, “Trump is putty in Putin’s hands” when the two men speak. “Putin has been dealing with world leaders for 25 years, and he’s no fool”.)

Zelensky has vowed that he will not sign any deal that had been agreed to without Ukraine’s input. Ukraine’s position to date is that it refuses to recognise any changes to its borders. “Ukraine has agreed the boundaries are its 1992 borders,” says Mick Ryan at Lowy, referring to the post-Soviet era when Ukraine became independent. “Russia has agreed its boundaries are all of Ukraine. The two sides are a long way apart at the moment.”

On the battlefield, Ukrainian and Russian troops are exhausted, fighting from village to village in wintry conditions on Ukraine’s eastern front. Notwithstanding recent incremental victories, Russia shifted its initial rapid offensive strategy to one of old-fashioned defence to protect the 20 per cent of territory it gained early in the war. It is well dug in, having spent months laying minefields and tank traps and excavating deep trenches to protect its troops from shells and snipers. Analysts say a successful Ukrainian counter-assault would be unlikely but so, too, would be an outright Russian victory any time soon.

‘Trump, through his intervention, has given Putin even less incentive to negotiate than what he had up until now.’

Mick Ryan, Lowy Institute

Several scenarios could play out from here, in no particular order.

The status quo could prevail: Ukraine and Russia remain bogged down, losing yet more lives, matériel and hard cash from their rapidly draining bank vaults. “I think the most likely is that Ukraine will fight on because Putin isn’t going to concede anything. He’s got no reason to,” says Ryan. “Trump, through his intervention, has given Putin even less incentive to negotiate than what he had up until now.”

Alternatively, one of the two sides claims an outright victory. According to the London-based think tank Chatham House, for Ukraine, this would require an increase in military support from its Western allies; conversely, a Russian victory would depend on a collapse of Western support for Ukraine and a subsequent military collapse, which could force its government to swallow a bitter peace to prevent further bloodshed.

Loading

Neither “victory” outcome seems likely at this time. “Despite the obvious asymmetries of army size, economic power and mobilisation potential that have made Ukraine the underdog in this war, the country still retains one vital advantage over its adversary,” wrote Chatham House’s John Lough in October. “Ukrainians are motivated by what they are fighting for. They have mobilised as a society to defend their independence. By contrast, Russian soldiers are fighting more for money and less for their country.”

Another scenario could be a peace deal, possibly starting with a Trump-brokered ceasefire. However, analysts point out that any pause in the conflict would be tenuous. “Without addressing the fundamental causes of the war – which are Russia’s insecurity and Putin’s inability to deal with his neighbours, as well as all the territory that he’s illegally invaded – any ceasefire will only be temporary,” says Ryan.

A peace deal might entail Ukraine, in a weak bargaining position, pragmatically ceding some territory Russia has taken with an agreement to negotiate territorial disputes at some time in the future. Says Sussex: “It could be, basically, the front line stops where it is now, or if the Russians get their way, then it’s [a] complete Ukrainian withdrawal from Donetsk, Luhansk in the east, plus Zaporizhzhia plus Kherson, which is a fair bit more territory.

“The thing Ukraine wants to avoid is some kind of deal where it gets shut out of the Black Sea, where it does most of its trade through grain.” (Ukraine is one of the world’s major grain producers.) Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, is likely to be off the table for now, says Zimmerman. “That would be very optimistic.”

A ceasefire or freeze in the war would likely necessitate provisions to guard against Russia re-arming and attacking once again, such as installing an international peacekeeping force. Zelensky has repeatedly pushed for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO; failing that, he has suggested deploying some 200,000 foreign troops to safeguard any ceasefire. On Thursday, Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer repeated earlier pledges that his country was ready to put “boots on the ground and planes in the air” to enforce a peace deal; after the spectacle in the White House, he reiterated his “unwavering support for Ukraine”.

That said, the role of peacekeepers has historically proven problematic. “What’s being proposed at the moment by the French is what’s called a reassurance force that’s not on the line of contact but far back in Ukraine,” says Sussex. “And that doesn’t really reassure the Ukrainians, for starters. And it also poses big questions about what happens if this reassurance force is attacked. Does it bring in NATO’s Article 5 – an attack against one is an attack against all?”

‘Certain NATO members will be looking to provide more substantive security guarantees to Ukraine, either bilaterally or multilaterally.’

Jessica Genauer, Flinders University

Loading

In any case, Europe shows little sign of abandoning Ukraine, fearing what it might mean for the region. “If Putin wins in Ukraine, there is no guarantee that Russian aggression will not spread to other countries,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a German newspaper in February, warning that Europe needed to “arm itself for a possibly decades-long confrontation” with Russia. Despite the unlikeliness of NATO membership for Ukraine, says Jessica Genauer, “Certain NATO members will be looking to provide more substantive security guarantees to Ukraine, either bilaterally or multilaterally, going forward.” An additional complication: Russia wants its own “security guarantees”, including a cap on the size of Ukraine’s military and a ban on foreign troops.

For now, the war grinds on. As Francis Farrell, the Sydneysider and correspondent for the Kyiv Independent, spoke to us from the city of Dnipro last week, air-raid sirens sounded in the background. “No one gave Ukraine any chance of surviving at the start,” he said. “The events are a reminder that when it comes to saving themselves, fighting for their own independence and sovereignty, as has been the case for centuries of history, stuck between different empires, Ukraine can and will do it on their own if necessary.”

Get fascinating insights and explanations on the world’s most perplexing topics. Sign up for our weekly Explainer newsletter.