On September 21, 2025, US President Donald Trump made headlines worldwide with a bold claim: lower global oil prices, he argued, could bring Russia’s war against Ukraine to an abrupt halt. Speaking at a Mount Vernon event and during interviews on Fox and other media, Trump pressed his case that economic leverage—particularly through energy markets—remains the most potent weapon in the West’s arsenal against Moscow’s ongoing aggression.
“This will automatically stop Russia’s war against Ukraine. Lower the prices a little more and it will stop the war. I am disappointed in Putin, but they are losing, 5,000 people are dying every week. Between 5,000 and 7,000 people are dying every week for no reason,” Trump said, as reported by RBC-Ukraine and echoed by several international outlets. He reiterated that the United States is ramping up oil production and doing everything possible to reduce costs on the world market, urging other countries to follow suit.
The president’s remarks come at a time of intense diplomatic activity following the recent Alaska summit, where leaders from the United States, Europe, and Ukraine met to explore rival visions of peace. According to TRENDS Research & Advisory, the summit underscored the complex web of interests and strategies at play. While Washington, under Trump’s leadership, appears intent on using economic tools to pressure Russia, Europe and Ukraine are still grappling with how best to secure lasting security guarantees and peace on the continent.
Europe, feeling the threat from Russia more acutely than the US, is pushing for a settlement that would guarantee Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and deter future attacks. There have even been discussions, albeit without consensus, about deploying European peacekeeping forces to Ukraine—a move fraught with risk, as it could drag Europe into a direct confrontation with Russia, especially if done outside NATO’s framework. As the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes, Russia’s military expenditure now stands at 6.7% of GDP, a 41% increase, and by purchasing power, exceeds the combined defense spending of Europe.
On the Russian side, the position remains steadfast: Ukraine must relinquish Donbas and Crimea, forego NATO membership, and accept security guarantees that provide only limited Western commitments. Moscow negotiates from a position of strength, having made significant territorial gains since the conflict’s escalation in February 2022, following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and years of supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Trump, meanwhile, has cast himself as a potential peace broker, but his approach marks a sharp departure from traditional US foreign policy. As TRENDS Research & Advisory highlights, Trump’s “America First” stance prioritizes US interests, often evaluating international engagement in terms of profit, loss, and transactional deals. He has at times blamed Ukraine for prolonging the war and suggested that European security should be Europe’s responsibility. In his words, “Europe’s security is Europe’s responsibility,” a sentiment that has left European leaders uneasy about the future of the US defense partnership under NATO.
At the Mount Vernon event, Trump expanded on his disappointment with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying, “He has let me down. I mean, he’s killing many people and he’s losing more people than he’s, you know, than he’s killing. I mean, frankly, Russian soldiers are being killed at a higher rate than the Ukrainian soldiers.” He also confessed that he had once considered the Russia-Ukraine war the “easiest” to solve, only to find the reality far more intractable. Despite several attempts, including direct talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a peace deal has remained elusive.
Beyond oil, Trump has threatened sweeping sanctions against Russia, contingent on all NATO countries ceasing their purchases of Russian oil. He has criticized European Union sanctions as “sufficiently weak” and called for more severe restrictions, particularly targeting Russia’s oil sector and banks. According to RBC-Ukraine, the United States and European Union are now negotiating a joint position to increase pressure on the Kremlin through coordinated sanctions on oil and gas.
The economic toll of the war is staggering. The global economy has lost an estimated $3 trillion since the conflict’s escalation; Europe alone has suffered $1.5 trillion in losses due to economic slowdown and inflation, while Ukraine’s own losses from infrastructure destruction and disrupted production approach $1 trillion. Russia, too, faces daily losses that have at times exceeded $300 million, according to estimates cited by TRENDS Research & Advisory.
Recent months have seen Ukraine launch counteroffensives, reclaiming territory in the south and northeast, and even conducting incursions into Russia’s Kursk Oblast. Yet, the military stalemate persists, and the human cost remains immense. Trump’s estimate of 5,000 to 7,000 deaths per week underscores the urgent need for a diplomatic breakthrough.
Amid all this, peace remains a distant goal. The path is blocked by irreconcilable demands: Moscow insists on retaining its territorial gains, while Kyiv demands a full Russian withdrawal from all internationally recognized Ukrainian territory. Security guarantees are another sticking point—Ukraine wants robust international involvement, possibly including peacekeepers, while Russia seeks to preserve its hard-won balance of power.
Europe, for its part, lacks the military capability to enforce peace in Ukraine without US support, and views the current US position as uncomfortably close to Russia’s. Ukraine is caught in the middle, torn between the risk of losing territory and the loss of security guarantees once offered by the prospect of NATO membership. The negotiating table, then, becomes the only arena where a durable solution might be found, though progress will require painful concessions from one side or a creative compromise that satisfies neither fully but ends the bloodshed.
As diplomacy and politics take center stage, direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian leaders—encouraged by Trump’s administration—may yet outline the main lines of a peace settlement. But obstacles abound, and the negotiations are unlikely to proceed without further setbacks and mutual accusations. Still, the sheer scale of the crisis and its global repercussions make continued diplomatic engagement not just desirable, but essential.
For now, the world watches as oil prices, sanctions, and summitry intertwine with the fate of Ukraine. The outcome remains uncertain, but the stakes—human, economic, and geopolitical—could hardly be higher.