As Moscow gears up for potential talks with Washington aimed at halting its extensive invasion of Ukraine, it is pursuing a much more ambitious outcome than simply achieving a ceasefire: it aspires for a global realignment of spheres of influence.

The Kremlin believes that such a deal would translate into U.S. acknowledgment of Russian supremacy in the post-Soviet region — encompassing Ukraine — and, to a certain degree, recognition of its sway in Europe.

To attain this objective, the Kremlin is actively searching for incentives that could captivate President Donald Trump, which may include agreements on rare earth elements, geopolitical leverage involving Iran and North Korea, or even the long-desired construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow.

Five Russian government officials, including two diplomats and three sources close to the Kremlin, have confirmed this to The Moscow Times, all agreeing to speak anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the discussions.

“The key is that the Americans refrain from meddling in our affairs and don’t dictate our way of life,” commented a senior Russian official familiar with the Kremlin’s negotiating stance. “We need them not to obstruct our current endeavors.”

Some officials in Moscow also foresee symbolic acts of acknowledgment as part of any potential agreement, such as President Vladimir Putin traveling to Washington for a meeting with Trump at the White House.

“It would certainly be a positive sign if our leader [Putin] made occasional visits to Washington to see Trump,” said a current government worker.

However, officials concede that the days of significant summits reminiscent of the Cold War or the initial post-Soviet period are behind us.

“Such expectations are hard to hold onto now,” the government official stated.

Acknowledging the constraints of its negotiating position, the Kremlin has instructed officials and analysts to explore every conceivable incentive that might engage Trump’s interest and prevent discussions from becoming too narrowly focused.

Following Trump’s electoral victory in November, the Kremlin directed major corporations to draft detailed proposals for economic collaboration with the United States.

“Intensive work was underway in the government, various ministries, and major state companies, including nighttime and weekend efforts: proposals were being assembled across essential economic sectors,” a current government official told The Moscow Times.

“Rosatom and Rosneft presented their initiatives, while gold producer Polyus provided updated information on gold reserves to the Kremlin. Other entities like Rusal also got involved,” the official mentioned, noting that Maxim Oreshkin, deputy head of the presidential administration, and Putin’s special envoy Kirill Dmitriev were among those leading these initiatives.

Employees at three major state-owned firms and a Kremlin insider confirmed these developments.

This fresh approach signifies the collapse of the earlier paradigm of U.S.-Russia relations.

During the Cold War, the superpowers employed a strategy of “linkage,” wherein unrelated matters became bargaining chips in a more extensive negotiation framework.

“You provide grain, and we’ll reduce radical elements in Latin America. You give me aspirin, and I’ll give you Valocordin,” a senior Russian diplomat explained.

The diplomat emphasized that having multiple issues on the agenda facilitates easier trade-offs and balances out disparities.

Unlike during the Cold War, however, Russia currently possesses far fewer advantageous positions. Strategic arms control treaties, which once guided dialogue, from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to New START, are deteriorating. Discussions regarding the extension of New START, which is due to expire in February 2026, have yet to commence.

“We used to engage in summits and sign treaties—initially the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), then the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). An entire ecosystem of consultations and collaborative mechanisms was established around this framework,” recalled a current Russian diplomat. “This initiated channels of cooperation between Moscow and Washington on various fronts.”

That architecture has now disintegrated, and arms control is of interest to Trump only in the context of his rivalry with China. Consequently, Moscow and Washington increasingly perceive each other as adversaries rather than collaborators.

“We compete in European hydrocarbon markets, food industries, and arms sales. This competition is only expected to escalate,” a Russian government official remarked.

With limited influence remaining, Moscow regards the conflict in Ukraine as its most valuable bargaining chip and aims to leverage Trump’s desire for a ceasefire.

“We need to exploit Trump’s inclination, presenting the prospect of a ceasefire as a tempting offer,” commented a participant in the discussions.

There is no misconception about the precariousness of this opportunity.

“The window may close abruptly. Trump could lose interest or, worse, harbor resentment,” several diplomats and officials who spoke to The Moscow Times concurred.

Nonetheless, many within the Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin maintain a different perspective.

“We are heading in the right direction. The priority is to readjust relations with the United States — a complex undertaking — while keeping the dialogue on Ukraine ongoing,” stated one Russian diplomat. “From there, the circumstances on the ground will dictate our subsequent actions. Ultimately, it revolves around time, patience, and persistence.”

Officially, the Kremlin has demonstrated a willingness to make concessions.

After a call with Trump in March, Putin indicated his agreement to a 30-day moratorium on strikes against Ukrainian energy facilities. While Ukraine separately announced support for a ceasefire, no formal agreement was signed by either side. Ukrainian representatives have accused Moscow of breaking the truce multiple times since.

“Given the current situation, discussing a ceasefire at this point is utterly unrealistic,” Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, stated in early April.

Officials identify two principal scenarios. The first involves agreeing to a Trump-mediated ceasefire in return for concessions such as limitations on U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

“However, this does not imply that weapons won’t continue to flow through Europe,” a Russian diplomat cautioned.

The second scenario is to assign any blame for failed negotiations to Kyiv.

“If Russia rejects a ceasefire, we must brace ourselves to confront a united Western front once more, and under even less favorable conditions for us,” another official warned.

Numerous ideas have been suggested as potential incentives to entice Trump into an agreement, from mediating U.S.-China discussions to joint missions to Mars. Nonetheless, the Kremlin possesses very few genuine leverage points.

Economic proposals appear weak. Even in their peak years, trade between the U.S. and Russia barely reached $45 billion, plummeting to just $3.5 billion in 2024, representing the lowest level since 1992.

Currently, Moscow can only offer limited commodities still in demand by the U.S.: titanium for aircraft production, uranium for nuclear energy, and heavy crude oil for Gulf Coast refineries. However, as one official observed, these “won’t significantly impact the American trade balance, making them of little interest to Trump.”

Russia is a significant supplier of rare earth elements such as scandium, yttrium, and lanthanum, which are crucial for electronics and defense systems, yet these resources are likewise seen as inadequate to secure substantial political concessions.

Regional initiatives are also restricted. Washington desires that Russia cease its arms deliveries to North Korea and adhere to UN sanctions. However, Moscow, having cultivated a growing alliance with Pyongyang, shows no intention of retreating from its cooperation.

Iran has also been proposed as a potential engagement route, given Russia’s involvement in managing Tehran’s spent nuclear fuel and supporting its peaceful nuclear endeavors.

“There is a belief that Trump holds a certain esteem for Putin, and that Putin’s assurances could sway an American decision regarding Iran,” remarked a Russian government official.

Nonetheless, even Russian diplomats acknowledge that Moscow’s role in U.S.-Iran discussions would be minimal at best.

“Tehran has always preferred to engage directly with the Americans and fears being ‘betrayed’ by us in a larger agreement,” a Russian diplomat noted.

More feasible proposals encompass energy collaboration and symbolic gestures. One idea involves a humanitarian mission in Gaza utilizing Russian-built infrastructure in Syria. Another might see informal cooperation on oil markets involving the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

“This could showcase three prominent leaders: the heads of the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia,” observed one Russian diplomat.

Additionally, there’s the concept of constructing a Trump Tower in Moscow. Officials have considered the ambitious project of a 150-story Trump Tower in Moscow City, the capital’s financial district. This initiative could be expedited, with Trump participating in the groundbreaking ceremony.

“Speed, significance, and flair: these are qualities that Trump inherently values,” said a source close to the Kremlin, highlighting past discussions between Trump’s team and Russian officials regarding this project.

Africa, which has long been a marginal aspect of U.S. foreign policy, is unlikely to engage Trump’s interest. Likewise, a joint mission to Mars is seen as unrealistic.

Across all these proposals, the Kremlin adheres to a guiding principle: initiatives must be finely tailored to Trump, feasible within one term, and possess strong media appeal.

“Without these elements,” a senior Russian official asserted, “it’s naive to anticipate any progress.”