The American president begins 2026, carrying one of the heaviest pending issues of his foreign policy: next February, he completes four years, with no immediate sign of him. Despite his ambition to resolve the issue in 24 hours, to be listed as the “peace president”, and his intense personal involvement in the negotiations, the conflict remains unresolved, with the differences between Kiev, Moscow, Washington and Europe proving deeper than he may have first realised.
The American effort for a peace agreement culminated in 2025, with Trump himself seeking a mediator role, with many variations of course. However, any expectations of a deal were dashed. According to analyzes from European circles, the main reason was the reluctance of the US president to exert sustained and substantial pressure on Russia to abandon its maximalist demands. On the contrary, at several moments, the American position appeared to be closer to the Russian perspective, at the expense of the Ukrainian positions for a “just and sustainable peace”.
The thorns that do not leave much hope for peace
The central thorn remains Donbas. Russia demands full control of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces as a minimum condition for an end to hostilities, although Ukraine still controls about 25 percent of Donetsk and a small part of Luhansk. Kiev has categorically rejected the concession of these territories, citing both political and military reasons. An alternative proposal by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which envisaged turning the Ukrainian-controlled part of Donbas into a demilitarized “free economic zone”, was not accepted by Moscow.
At the same time, security guarantees for Ukraine remain a critical issue. Washington has proposed a 15-year guarantee, while Kiev is asking for a commitment of up to 50 years, which would act as a deterrent against a future Russian invasion. The Ukrainian side seeks a framework similar to Article 5 of NATO, although without full membership in the Alliance. US officials have made it clear that these guarantees will not remain on the table indefinitely and are directly linked to territorial compromises.
The gap with Europe, “after the end of Pax Americana”
For Europe, Ukrainian has highlighted the limits of the strategy of autonomy. Despite diplomatic support for Kiev and efforts to influence the US stance, it remains dependent on the US to exert meaningful pressure on Moscow – either through military aid and intelligence sharing or through sanctions, particularly in the energy sector.
At the same time, the perception gap between the US and Europe about Russia “will continue to deepen in 2026”, estimates the Financial Times. While many European governments see Moscow as the continent’s main security threat, the Trump administration appears to be viewing Russia more as a potential business partner and seeking a form of “strategic stabilization.” This approach, if consolidated in 2026, threatens to widen the rift between Washington and European capitals, comments the British newspaper.
With these facts, and even though the US president, shortly before the end of the year, seemed optimistic, 2026 “will hardly bring a comprehensive peace agreement”, Politico speculates, considering the most likely scenario is the continuation of a negotiation process, without Russian willingness to retreat, with Europe trying to hold the US in a line of support for Ukraine and Trump balancing between geopolitical reality and his desire to be recorded as the leader who “ended the war”.
The journal concludes that for European security, the outcome of this balance remains open and worryingly uncertain, while it will demonstrate America’s new role “after the end of Pax Americana”.
