U.S. Ends Mediation in Ukraine Conflict, Considers New Sanctions Against Russia

The United States officially announced its withdrawal from mediating negotiations aimed at resolving the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The decision was communicated by U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce during a press briefing, marking a significant shift in the Donald Trump administration’s approach to a situation that has persisted for over three years.

Bruce emphasized that moving forward, any initiatives to address the conflict should originate directly from Kyiv and Moscow. “The president wants every decision we make as a nation to be diplomatic,” she stated, highlighting Trump’s commitment to a peaceful resolution. However, she noted that the U.S. must prioritize its resources across various global issues, rather than concentrating solely on Ukraine. “We are not going to fly around the world to organize negotiations. This is between the two sides now,” Bruce asserted.

This announcement follows warnings from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who indicated that the U.S. might withdraw from the peace process altogether if substantive progress was not achieved promptly.

In a related development, the U.S. State Department confirmed that the option of introducing new sanctions against the Russian Federation remains on the table. Bruce reiterated that the United States does not plan to lift any of the sanctions previously imposed against Russia, emphasizing Washington’s tough stance toward Moscow. She also noted ongoing efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine but expressed skepticism regarding Russia’s sincerity, particularly in light of recent military actions.

These discussions come amid comments from President Donald Trump, who on April 26 suggested potential secondary sanctions against Russia via his social media platform. Trump indicated that such measures could be enacted if Moscow does not engage in serious negotiations to resolve the conflict, pointing to recent strikes on Ukrainian territory as a catalyst for Washington’s hardened position.

The proposed secondary sanctions would target foreign companies and financial institutions conducting business with Russian entities under U.S. sanctions. This strategy has been actively employed by Washington since the enactment of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) in 2017, which mandates sanctions against those engaged in “significant transactions” with sanctioned Russian entities. For instance, in 2018, secondary sanctions were applied to a Chinese defense agency for acquiring Russian Su-35 fighter jets and S-400 systems.

This current U.S. stance has sparked considerable discussion among experts regarding the potential repercussions of new sanctions. Some are highlighting the support for a bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate, introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham, known for his controversial positions. According to Graham, 72 out of 100 senators back the bill, which proposes “crushing” sanctions and tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other commodities. Should Russia refuse to negotiate, the bill suggests imposing duties of up to 500% on buyers of Russian raw materials.

Countries such as China, India, and Turkey, which continue to engage with Russia despite Western sanctions, could be significantly impacted by these measures. Notably, in 2023, the U.S. expanded the scope of secondary sanctions to include goods produced from Russian raw materials in third countries, signaling a commitment to increasing economic pressure on Moscow via global supply chains.

Earlier discussions about lifting sanctions emerged in early 2025, with reports indicating that the White House had directed the State and Treasury Departments to explore options for easing restrictions as part of efforts to normalize relations with Russia. However, Trump later clarified that any potential easing would depend on Russia meeting specific conditions, including halting military action in Ukraine.