The U.S. is most likely to lead a successful campaign for peace in Ukraine, and Donald Trump is the man to do it - in stages.

After more than four years of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, the outlines of a possible path to peace are coming into view. 

It is not a finished treaty by any means, and it may not look much like the sweeping agreement many people imagined when the fighting began. It’s looking smaller, at least for now. Soon, we may see a ceasefire, followed by the difficult work of negotiating a lasting settlement.

President Donald Trump has the best chance of bringing the parties toward that outcome. His administration is already talking to both Kyiv and Moscow, and the United States possesses something no other potential mediator can match: substantial influence over both countries’ calculations.

That influence does not guarantee success. But the latest diplomatic developments suggest there is reason to keep trying.

Ukraine, Russia and the United States are expected to resume technical-level negotiations in November, potentially in Abu Dhabi. The planned talks follow meetings between U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders in Oslo, and then between Witkoff and Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg.

Meanwhile, a limited humanitarian ceasefire is scheduled to begin October 27 around Oleshky, a Russian-occupied town in southern Ukraine where residents have endured severe shortages of food, medicine and clean water. First lady Melania Trump helped broker the arrangement, which is intended to allow aid deliveries and civilian evacuations.

A local pause is not a nationwide ceasefire. Still, if the operation succeeds, it will show that even bitter adversaries can reach and carry out an agreement when they see a reason to do so.

The United States has the means to help create more of those reasons.

For Ukraine, America remains an important source of military equipment, intelligence and potential long-term security commitments. For Russia, Washington has influence over sanctions, diplomatic relations and the possibility of future economic engagement. For both countries, the United States can bring European governments and other partners into discussions about security and rebuilding.

Trump’s willingness to communicate directly with Putin is an advantage. Diplomacy requires talking to the people who can make decisions, including leaders with whom the United States has profound disagreements. A conversation with the Kremlin is not an endorsement of every Russian demand. It is a necessary part of trying to end the fighting.

At the same time, Ukraine must be part of any agreement about its future, obviously. Zelensky’s government — or a future administration — will have to decide what its country can accept, and Ukrainians will have to live with the consequences. A settlement that leaves Kyiv unable to defend itself would risk becoming a pause before another war.

That is where the most difficult questions arise. Russia has demanded control of the entire Donbas, including territory Ukraine still holds. Kyiv rejects surrendering land under its control and wants reliable security guarantees. Zelensky has also said Ukraine will not accept limits on its armed forces or enforced neutrality.

Those positions are far apart. But they need not all be resolved before the guns fall silent.

A ceasefire could begin along existing lines of control, without requiring Ukraine to recognize occupied territory as Russian. Negotiators could then address the longer-term status of those areas, the return of prisoners and displaced civilians, and the arrangements needed to deter future attacks. Both sides would need to agree on how a ceasefire would be monitored and what would happen if it were violated.

That approach would be imperfect. It could leave painful questions unanswered for years. It could also save lives while diplomats work through issues that have resisted resolution on the battlefield.

But any progress toward peace, even imperfect steps, could still ultimately bring about a positive outcome.

There are smaller steps that could help build confidence along the way. Prisoner exchanges have already continued despite the fighting. Agreements to protect energy infrastructure, expand humanitarian access or safeguard shipping could give each side a reason to remain engaged. In October, an exchange facilitated by the United States and the United Arab Emirates returned 270 prisoners to each side.

Trump can offer incentives as well as apply pressure. Sanctions relief, for example, could be tied to verified steps rather than granted all at once. European governments could help provide security commitments and reconstruction funding, while countries such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates could continue facilitating talks and humanitarian agreements.

None of this will be easy. Putin and Zelensky may calculate that continued fighting offers them a better position than compromise. And a ceasefire would have to be more than a declaration: it would require rules, monitoring and consequences if those rules are broken.

But the alternative also has a price. Every month of war brings more casualties, more damage to Ukrainian communities and more uncertainty for a world already strained by conflict in the Persian Gulf.

Trump has the access, leverage and stated ambition to lead a serious peace effort. The November talks offer an opportunity to test what both sides are prepared to do. A ceasefire could be the first step toward a treaty — and toward giving Ukrainians the chance to rebuild their lives.

(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)