Posted by 
Donald Trump may have begun discussions with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, over a possible end to the war in Ukraine, but there currently appears to be something of a stalemate.
Russia’s stated objectives of holding on to five regions of Ukraine (including Crimea) as well as ensuring Ukraine’s permanent neutrality is unlikely to be acceptable to Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky. Meanwhile, Zelensky and Trump had a very public falling out, with the US president calling Zelensky a “dictator”.
This seems to have been resolved somewhat now that the pair appear to have agreed a deal for the US to jointly develop Ukraine’s mineral resources. But serious further negotiation to actually end the war will depend on whether the key players can trust each other as well as whether Zelensky perceives anything Putin and Trump have to say as believable.
Broadly speaking, trust and its development between leaders offers a potential route to overcoming international conflict and bringing about diplomatic agreement. Indeed, a minimum level of trust is needed to enable states to work together.
An example of this was how the relationship between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and US president Ronald Reagan developed. Arguably it was regular face-to-face interactions between Gorbachev and Reagan (four summits in just over three years) which allowed them to develop a level of understanding and increase trust, allowing them to reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles.
Nevertheless, it still took time to develop their trust and this remained fragile.
How is trust won?
Trust is an important element in effective negotiations and can shape their outcome and influence whether peace talks are successful. The importance of trust in a negotiation can be found throughout history.
Even if trust has potentially developed between leaders, if other individual decision-makers, such as military leaders, do not share that trust, it can seriously damage negotiations. One example of this is how the Lahore peace process between India and Pakistan in 1999 was undermined by Pakistani military action.
General Pervez Musharraf, head of the armed forces, conducted a military incursion into the Jammu and Kashmir area, violating the treaty between the two states and leading to a breakdown in trust, undermining the peace deal signed earlier that year between the Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, and his Indian counterpart, Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Who do you trust?
In international relations terms the key factors that create trust are considered by scholars to be capacity, peaceful intention, integrity and predictability . Trump seems to believe that Putin is a trustworthy negotiating partner because he perceives him as sincere in his desire for peace. This view is not shared by Zelensky, who questions Putin’s sincerity, intentions and integrity .
Zelensky suggests that Putin’s past actions (including leading a full-scale invasion of Ukraine) point towards his future untrustworthiness. This may be underlined by Russia’s dismissal of the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, which were an attempt to negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine but were never properly implemented. Instead of pursuing implementation, Russia chose further military action against Ukraine in 2022.
To move forward with negotiations, Zelensky will need to be convinced that Putin is serious in his intentions and willing to act with integrity. The Ukrainian leader will also need to be convinced that Trump is trustworthy and that he can trust that the US will ensure that Putin honours any agreement reached.
If Trump is to achieve his aim of bringing the war to an end, then he will clearly need to address this lack of trust. One temptation may emerge to simply exclude Zelensky from face-to-face meetings (to sidestep the issue altogether) but there are risks in leaders not meeting opponents.
When it came to trying to reach an agreement with the Palestinians in the 1990s, the then Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, regretted not having met the PLO chairman, Yasser Arafat, before reaching agreement on the framework for the Oslo accords because he would have better understood how Arafat saw the negotiations. The implication was that Rabin would have proceeded differently if he had known Arafat better.
Alternatively, Trump could leverage his own relationship with Putin to “encourage” the Russian leader to take steps that demonstrate to Zelensky that he is a trustworthy negotiating partner. Crucially, it will be for Putin to demonstrate his seriousness and sincerity towards meaningful negotiations and a peaceful resolution. Gestures of conciliation could hold the key.
One famous examples of this is when Egyptian president Anwar Sadat visited Jerusalem in 1978, becoming the first Arab leader to speak to the Israeli parliament. This was seen as vital to peace talks between the two countries and resulted in the 1979 Camp David accords.
Face-to-face interactions between Putin and Zelensky could provide a way of reassuring the Ukrainian leader. However, much more is required to demonstrate that an individual or even a state is trustworthy than not.
As Deborah Larson, professor of political science at the University of California, once said,: “People believe that a good person will never do anything bad, whereas a bad person can do occasional good as well as bad deeds. As a result, just one misdeed indicates that an actor is immoral, whereas one good act does not demonstrate much.”
Another approach would be to start Russian-Ukrainian negotiations at a much lower level and develop them upwards (or in parallel to higher-level negotiations). Individuals representing the key decision makers could develop their own interpersonal relations, while working out how to bridge gaps between the different leaders.
Any negotiations to end the war will rest ultimately on those two states and their leaders. Ignoring the interpersonal relationships and lack of trust between the two people who will sign off any agreement makes any agreement almost impossible.
David J. Wilcox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
