"Old men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die," said former U.S. President Herbert C. Hoover. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, although the reference is to a U.S. president, the term "old men" may also be interpreted as including American politicians. Indeed, since the war was launched on Feb. 24, 2022, by Russian President Vladimir Putin under the label of a "special military operation," Western actors who appear to support Ukraine have, in fact, contributed to the deepening of the crisis.

In the early months of 2025, the prevailing view within the international community was that there was no hope of the war ending, at least in the short term. The inability of either the Russian or the Ukrainian side to present a clear declaration of intent regarding a common peace plan was a key factor shaping this perception. Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump, who claimed he could end the Russia-Ukraine war "within 24 hours” and is often associated with Nobel Peace Prize rhetoric, failed to establish a tangible peace process in the near term. Studies addressing the Russia-Ukraine war, including this analysis, do not assess the issue merely as a bilateral power struggle between Moscow and Kyiv.

Given that examining the war on a day-to-day basis may not be sufficient to reach a definitive judgment, the developments that will shape the course of the war in 2025 can be grouped into three main categories. These are, respectively, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to the United States, the Putin-Trump meeting in Alaska and the controversial peace plan put forward by Trump.

Zelenskyy’s visit to the U.S.

One of the most critical developments in 2025 shaping the war in Ukraine was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to the U.S. The visit became "significant” due to the relatively "unexpected” diplomatic treatment he received at the White House. Zelenskyy’s insistence on "no concessions” in peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, together with his demand for a cease-fire supported by security guarantees, negatively influenced the meeting’s tone. By contrast, Trump’s remark, "Your people are very brave, but you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out,” made the summit highly unconventional in diplomatic terms. The public and media-visible nature of these developments further increased international attention.

After Zelenskyy warned that Russia-based threats could eventually undermine U.S. security, Trump’s sharp response, "You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel," further raised tensions. The participation of U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who also described Zelenskyy as "disrespectful," demonstrated that the exchange had crossed diplomatic boundaries. Together, these developments signaled to the international community that, as of 2025, a near-term peace in Ukraine was unlikely and that Ukraine would likely have to make significant concessions to achieve it.

Putin-Trump meeting

Although the meeting held on Aug. 16, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska was officially framed around "the situation in Ukraine,” the issue itself was addressed for only a few minutes. In fact, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s appearance in a sweater bearing the inscription "USSR” drew more attention than the talks. Trump’s remark, "No deal until there is a deal,” summed up the meeting. Yet the most notable element was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s renewed insistence that the conflict’s "root causes” must be removed to achieve peace.

During the summit, Trump’s failure to mention Ukraine or a possible cease-fire even once in his remarks stood out as a striking oxymoron, reinforcing the idea that Ukraine's position in future peace talks would be increasingly weakened. In contrast, the weakest signal the summit offered regarding peace in Ukraine was limited to Putin’s statement that he "wanted the bloodshed to end.” Ultimately, while the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska fell short of international expectations, it provided a platform for Putin to articulate his demands clearly and directly. In this context, another major development in 2025 concerning the Russia-Ukraine war was the peace plan proposed by Donald Trump toward the end of the year.

Trump’s Ukraine peace plan

As hopes within the international community for peace in Ukraine were nearly exhausted by 2025, a plan introduced by Trump toward the end of the year emerged as one of the most striking developments. The 28-point peace plan announced by Trump in November quickly moved to the forefront of the international agenda. Provisions such as limiting the Ukrainian army to 800,000 personnel, excluding NATO membership for Kyiv, prohibiting NATO from maintaining a "permanent” military presence in Ukraine, and Ukraine’s commitment not to retake lost territories by military means rendered this "Peace Plan” particularly detrimental to Ukraine.

The inclusion of such explicit provisions favoring Russia gives the impression that the plan was designed to meet Putin’s demand, voiced in Alaska in August, to eliminate the conflict’s "root causes.” At the same time, Trump appears to have anticipated that the plan would be difficult for Ukraine to accept at the outset, as he emphasized that it was not a "final offer.” By contrast, Zelenskyy’s reference to the draft as a 20-point rather than a 28-point plan demonstrates that even at the leadership level, there is no shared approach to peace in Ukraine.

Moreover, Trump’s late-year statement that peace in Ukraine would not be possible "without his approval” suggests that prospects for peace largely hinge on the political will of the U.S. government. Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that the decisive will to end the war likely lies not with Trump or Zelenskyy, but with Putin. In this context, it is fitting to conclude the analysis with a Russian proverb: "If you invite a bear to dance, it’s not you who decides when the dance is over. It’s the bear.”