On November 11, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov firmly denied a report by The Washington Post alleging that US President-elect Donald Trump had engaged in a private call with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the Ukraine conflict. The report, published on November 10, claimed that Trump urged Putin to avoid escalating the war in Ukraine and reminded him of the extensive US military presence in Europe. This claim, which has stirred considerable attention amid speculation over Trump’s foreign policy stance, was labeled by Peskov as “simply false information,” denying that any phone call had taken place between the two leaders.

The Post based its reporting on unnamed sources familiar with the alleged conversation, claiming Trump expressed a desire for future discussions aimed at ending the Ukraine war quickly. This report came on the heels of a November 6 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Elon Musk, a prominent backer of Trump, reportedly joined the conversation. Musk’s involvement has drawn additional scrutiny due to his prior controversial suggestions for peace negotiations in Ukraine that involved potential concessions by Kyiv.

Trump’s recent election victory has intensified global discussions on the future of US support for Ukraine. He has consistently expressed a desire to end the conflict swiftly, often casting doubt on the substantial financial and military aid that Washington has provided to Kyiv since the war’s onset. Known for his skepticism toward lengthy overseas engagements and vast military aid, Trump’s policies may present a stark shift from the outgoing Democratic administration’s strategy.

Throughout his campaign, Trump criticized the financial burden the Ukraine war has placed on the US, framing it as part of a broader “pro-war nexus” involving defense companies and policy hawks. Trump’s vision for a swift resolution to the conflict has resonated with a portion of the American electorate wary of the long-term costs associated with supporting Ukraine. However, Trump has yet to clarify how his plan to end the war aligns with Kyiv’s territorial integrity and sovereignty or if it might entail territorial concessions by Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has intensified its efforts to support Ukraine before Trump assumes office on January 20. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan announced that the White House plans to allocate the remaining $6 billion in approved funding for Ukraine, aiming to bolster Ukraine’s position on the battlefield and at any eventual negotiation table. Sullivan described the administration’s intent as positioning Ukraine “in the strongest possible position” ahead of any peace talks.

This final infusion of support could shape Ukraine’s strategy in the coming months, particularly given Trump’s public disinterest in maintaining current aid levels. By providing as much assistance as possible before the change of administration, Biden’s team aims to ensure Ukraine is well-prepared for any shift in US policy. This approach, however, is not without complications, as it potentially locks the incoming administration into commitments or expectations that may conflict with Trump’s broader strategy.

Trump’s return to office has raised anxieties among some European nations, particularly those that are militarily and financially involved in Ukraine’s defense. Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Trump on November 10, and the two leaders reportedly agreed to work toward a “return to peace in Europe.” Yet, European leaders remain wary of Trump’s tendency for unilateral actions, especially when it comes to potential concessions or negotiations with Moscow that could affect the stability of the continent.

The prospect of Trump pursuing an expedited resolution with Russia has placed European allies, such as the United Kingdom and France, on high alert. These nations, strong supporters of Ukraine’s full sovereignty, are apprehensive about Trump’s lack of commitment to preserving Kyiv’s territorial claims. Any shift in US policy away from military support or economic assistance could create a rift in the Western alliance, which has thus far maintained a relatively united front.

Given Trump’s vocal opposition to continued US funding for Ukraine, there are concerns that his administration might advocate for a peace settlement involving territorial concessions by Kyiv. Such a scenario could require Ukraine to cede portions of the south and east that Russia currently occupies. However, Ukraine, facing significant manpower shortages and an uncertain future with regard to international support, has consistently opposed the idea of relinquishing any territory to Russia.

Zelensky has argued that conceding any land would only embolden Russia and set a dangerous precedent, a view that is shared by many European allies. Despite ongoing resource challenges, Ukraine has taken a firm stance, insisting on the full restoration of its territorial borders. Yet, Trump’s alignment with a rapid resolution, potentially involving territorial adjustments, could place Kyiv in a precarious position, as it navigates both diplomatic and military pressures.

As the conflict approaches its third year, both Russia and Ukraine have escalated their tactical offensives, potentially to strengthen their positions ahead of any peace talks. In recent months, Ukraine has reclaimed some of its occupied territories, while Russia has simultaneously advanced on new fronts in eastern Ukraine. Over the weekend, both sides launched massive drone assaults, with Russia sending 145 drones into Ukraine and Ukraine targeting Moscow with 34 drones.

This escalation demonstrates both countries’ unwillingness to back down and could reflect an attempt to gain leverage ahead of any discussions. In the context of shifting US leadership and changing diplomatic dynamics, these military developments may signal an intensified phase of the conflict, even as calls for peace negotiations become more pronounced.

In Russia, Trump’s return has been met with guarded optimism. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov indicated a positive reception to Trump’s initial gestures, noting that Trump has emphasized peace rather than confrontation. Although Russia remains cautious, the Kremlin appears to view Trump’s approach as an opportunity to potentially reshape its relationship with the US and seek a favorable outcome to the Ukraine conflict.

Trump’s rhetoric throughout his campaign has emphasized disengaging from costly overseas conflicts, and his consistent critique of US military aid to Ukraine aligns with Russia’s interests. For Moscow, a reduced US commitment to Ukraine could present a valuable opening to solidify its hold on occupied territories without facing the full force of Western support for Kyiv.

As Trump prepares to enter the White House, his administration’s approach to the Ukraine conflict is expected to diverge sharply from Biden’s. While Trump’s campaign promises of ending the war quickly have resonated with his supporters, the lack of specific details raises concerns about potential sacrifices in Ukraine’s sovereignty and the implications for US relations with European allies.

Trump’s stance on Ukraine may set the stage for significant shifts in US foreign policy, with ripple effects likely to influence the entire European continent. In the coming months, as Trump engages with global leaders and begins to shape his policy agenda, the world will be watching closely to see if his calls for peace translate into practical, and sustainable, diplomatic solutions for the Ukraine conflict.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel