A tactical move or strategic exit? What the U.S. withdrawal from mediation really means
In an interview with News.Az, American political scientist Alan Cafruny, the Henry Platt Bristol Professor of International Affairs at Hamilton College, shares his insights on the shifting role of the United States in the Russia–Ukraine war, the challenges facing direct negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv, and how Washington’s evolving stance may affect the future format of peace talks and the broader position of Western powers.
- What does the U.S. refusal to play the role of mediator mean: a signal to stop supporting Ukraine or a tactical move to pressure both sides of the conflict?
- The statements by Tammy Bruce and Marco Rubio reflect the Trump administration’s frustration over its failure to deliver on Donald Trump’s promise to negotiate a peace deal. This failure stems from multiple factors. Despite Trump’s return to the White House, the U.S. foreign policy establishment remains divided—between hawks (led by Kellogg and Rubio) and advocates of rapprochement (led by Witkoff).
This division continues to generate confusion and mixed signals from Washington. Even the latter camp—including, presumably, Trump himself—has a limited understanding of Russia’s uncompromising insistence that any peace agreement must address what it sees as the root causes of the conflict: Ukraine’s potential NATO membership or its use as a NATO military staging area; and formal recognition by all parties of Crimea and the four eastern oblasts—now fully or partially occupied and annexed—as Russian territory.
These issues are non-negotiable for Moscow. Neither the resource deal reportedly agreed upon by Zelensky and Trump in Rome, nor the threat of further sanctions, will shift Russia’s position—particularly given its ongoing battlefield advances. These gains explain Russia’s refusal to accept a 30-day ceasefire, which could provide Ukraine with the opportunity to regroup with renewed support from Europe and the U.S.
- How realistic are direct negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv without U.S. involvement, given the current level of mistrust?
- The United States remains an active participant in the war. Apart from a brief pause following the Oval Office debacle, it has consistently provided Ukraine with essential military, intelligence, and technical support. Even if Trump were inclined to enforce a settlement favorable to Russia, Zelensky would likely be both unwilling and politically unable—largely for domestic reasons—to accept it. Moreover, hawkish voices within the Trump administration are growing louder, and Trump himself is unlikely to risk being held responsible for a Ukrainian defeat, particularly as his domestic approval ratings continue to decline.
- What impact could this U.S. decision have on the format of a future peace conference and the positions of other Western countries?
- Even as it considers stepping back from direct mediation, the United States remains deeply involved in the conflict. The key question will be the degree of continued military and economic support provided by both the U.S. and its European allies to Kyiv. Their stance will significantly influence the structure and credibility of any future peace conference.
Similar news
