Putin appears to be playing Trump by delaying the US plan for Ukraine.

Former President Donald Trump frequently boasts about his “great relationship” with Vladimir Putin. Soon, the world will see whether that supposed connection holds any real weight.

On Thursday, Putin responded in classic Kremlin fashion to the U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal, which Washington pressured Kyiv into supporting. Instead of outright rejecting the plan, the Russian president buried it under a web of demands and ambiguities—terms that Ukraine could never accept. Yet, these conditions seemed crafted to appeal to a U.S. president eager for a diplomatic victory.

Putin tread carefully, calling Trump’s initiative “great and correct” and voicing support for it in principle. He avoided alienating a U.S. leader who had already signaled a willingness to make key concessions—most notably, acknowledging that Ukraine would never gain NATO membership.

However, Putin’s call for further negotiations, including direct talks with Trump, was a strategic move to stall for time. Russian forces were on the brink of driving Ukrainian troops out of the Kursk region—one of Kyiv’s few bargaining chips in future peace talks.

Putin also raised concerns over how a ceasefire would be monitored and whether Ukraine would be allowed to rearm, hinting at efforts to shape any agreement to Russia’s advantage. He further stressed the need to address the “root causes” of the war—a phrase long used as Kremlin shorthand for grievances like NATO expansion, the presence of Western troops in former Soviet-aligned states like Poland and Romania, and even Ukraine’s very existence as a democratic nation.

Russia’s response followed a familiar playbook—one designed to entangle negotiators in endless discussions, piling on delays and conditions while the Kremlin advances its strategic objectives.

Thursday’s developments underscored just how difficult it will be for the Trump administration to shift Russia from its entrenched stance and engage in serious ceasefire negotiations.

While Moscow stalled, Trump pushed for a breakthrough, eager for a diplomatic win amid stock market slumps fueled by his trade policies. “I think we’re going to be in very good shape to get it done. We want to get it over with,” he declared optimistically from the Oval Office—an assessment at odds with reality.

Trump Upbeat Despite Putin’s Stalling

Trump put a positive spin on Putin’s response, calling it a “very promising statement, but it wasn’t complete.” He added, “Now we’re going to see whether or not Russia’s there. And if they’re not, it will be a very disappointing moment for the world.” His optimism was expected, given his need to sustain momentum for a fragile diplomatic effort. However, his readiness to overlook Putin’s new set of demands stood in stark contrast to his anger when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sat in the same office and warned that Russia couldn’t be trusted without security guarantees.

Retired Adm. James Stavridis noted that Putin was playing a careful game. “If you put it on a scale between ‘nyet’ (no) and ‘da’ (yes), he’s right in the middle,” he told CNN’s Jim Sciutto. Stavridis, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, suggested that while Putin might absorb some pressure from Trump, he had no intention of abandoning his own objectives.

Meanwhile, Trump repeated his usual refrain that the U.S. is protected by an ocean, far removed from the largest land war in Europe since World War II. But those closer to the conflict remain far less confident in America’s peace efforts.

“I am pessimistic and skeptical about Russia’s intentions and its willingness to pursue a just and sustainable peace,” Latvian Defense Minister Andris Sprūds told CNN International’s Isa Soares. He described Russia’s strategy as a classic “salami tactic,” in which it slices away at its broader political objectives piece by piece—an approach that has long served the Kremlin’s ambitions.

Trump’s Goals Are Ambitious, But Putin May Not Share Them

If Trump manages to broker a lasting, sustainable peace in Ukraine, it would be a remarkable achievement—perhaps even worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize he reportedly covets. More importantly, it would save thousands of lives on both sides of the conflict. His administration has often claimed that only he has the ability to end the war, and there may be some truth to that. While President Joe Biden successfully rallied Western allies to supply Ukraine with weapons, ammunition, and financial aid—preserving its independence—there was never a serious pathway for negotiations with Putin, who remained isolated after launching his full-scale invasion three years ago.

Trump may also be tapping into growing fatigue among Americans over the cost of supporting Ukraine, though his claim that the U.S. has spent $350 billion is a significant exaggeration. Some analysts argue that his administration is merely acknowledging reality—that Ukraine is unlikely to reclaim its eastern territories occupied by Russia or Crimea, which Putin annexed in 2014. Even European governments that stood by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, despite Trump’s hostility, quietly recognize that some form of territorial compromise may be necessary to end the war.

However, Trump’s past admiration for Putin, his deferential approach during his first term, and his initial praise for Russia’s invasion cast doubt on his motives for pushing a swift resolution. Since returning to office, he has pressured Zelensky into a highly publicized Oval Office meeting and shifted the U.S. government’s sympathies from Ukraine—the victim of aggression—to Putin, its perpetrator. He cut off vital intelligence-sharing that helped Ukraine defend itself from missile and drone strikes and temporarily halted military aid to strong-arm Kyiv into accepting an immediate ceasefire. While U.S. assistance has resumed, the brief suspension made one thing clear: Trump has the power to force Ukraine into a deal if he chooses.

But will Trump apply similar pressure on Putin now that the Russian leader—unlike Zelensky—has rejected his terms? For weeks, Trump has insisted that Putin wants to end the war. Yet, Thursday’s developments suggest otherwise—the Kremlin is in no rush to stop the fighting.

Who Holds the Real Leverage—Trump or Putin?

This week, President Trump threatened new tariffs on Russian imports and banking sanctions that he claimed would cripple Moscow’s economy. But after years of efforts to isolate Russia from the global financial system, direct business ties between the U.S. and Russia are already minimal. Meanwhile, Moscow has established alternative economic lifelines—particularly through China—to sustain its wartime economy.

On Thursday, Trump declined to specify what leverage he could use to pressure Putin into a deal. But since reclaiming the White House, his actions suggest he views Ukraine as a stepping stone toward rekindling a superpower partnership with Russia. He has, for instance, called for Moscow’s reinstatement in the Group of Seven, which expelled Russia after its annexation of Crimea. He also appears eager for a high-profile summit with Putin—one that would restore the Russian leader’s global standing.

Trump’s expansionist rhetoric, including musings about absorbing Canada and Greenland into the U.S., echoes Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine. This raises the possibility that, at some point, the prospect of stronger ties with Washington could persuade Putin to put his fixation on Ukraine on hold—at least temporarily.

During Trump’s first term, speculation ran wild over his affinity for Putin, the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election, and whether he was somehow compromised by Russia. While no evidence ever proved he was a Russian asset, his admiration for Putin has never wavered.

Now, in his second term, Trump has taken an even more dramatic turn—attacking U.S. allies while shifting blame for the war onto Zelensky rather than Putin, the man who launched it.

This is why foreign policy experts and allied governments worry about how far Trump might go to appease the Kremlin. What if Putin demanded Zelensky’s removal as a precondition for peace—would Trump comply? After all, he has already falsely labeled the Ukrainian leader a dictator. And what if Russia insisted on withdrawing NATO forces from Eastern Europe under the pretense of addressing what Putin calls the “root causes” of the war?

At the heart of these concerns lies a fundamental question: Is Trump truly negotiating with Putin, or is Putin the one pulling the strings?