According to Peter Dickinson, writing for the Atlantic Council, this marks a notable shift from the fifty-day deadline Trump set earlier in July and signals that the U.S. president’s patience is wearing thin. The latest warning follows Trump’s decision to arm Ukraine indirectly by selling American weapons to European allies.According to Dickinson, the Trump administration had previously taken a conciliatory approach toward Moscow, offering numerous concessions to Russia while pressing Ukraine to accept a settlement favoring the Kremlin. Since U.S.-led negotiations began in February 2025, Trump had “repeatedly signaled that he was ready to accept most of the Kremlin’s demands,” including recognizing Russia’s control over occupied Ukrainian territories, blocking NATO membership for Ukraine, and easing sanctions on Moscow.At one stage, Dickinson notes, Trump even “reportedly explored the possibility of granting official US recognition for the 2014 Russian seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.” Meanwhile, the White House dropped criticism of Russia’s invasion and pulled back from international efforts to prosecute Russian war crimes in Ukraine.Despite what Dickinson calls an “unprecedented triumph for the Kremlin” in terms of potential optics, Putin remained unmoved. Although he voiced theoretical support for peace efforts, in practice, he sabotaged negotiations by stalling and demanding terms that would “mean the effective end of Ukrainian statehood.”This rejection has left Trump in a difficult position. Having spent months promoting the idea of a breakthrough peace deal, he now has little choice but to acknowledge Putin’s unwillingness to end the war. As a result, the U.S. has resumed arms transfers to Ukraine and issued a more aggressive ultimatum.Dickinson observes that speculation is growing about Trump’s next move if Putin ignores the new deadline. There is also debate about whether military aid delivered through European intermediaries will be enough to shift the trajectory of the war.Yet the central question remains: Why did Putin turn down such favorable peace terms?“Putin’s most immediate reason for refusing to end the war in Ukraine is because he thinks he is winning,” Dickinson writes. Despite the slow pace, “there is no question that Putin currently holds the battlefield initiative and can reasonably expect to prevail in a war of attrition.”International hesitation has also encouraged the Kremlin. Western support for Kyiv, while significant, has often been delayed or limited, leading Putin to believe that time is on his side. “It is not difficult to understand why the Russian leader might prefer to continue his invasion while awaiting what he sees as the inevitable Ukrainian collapse,” Dickinson explains.On the home front, Putin benefits from the wartime economy. Since 2022, Russia has increased military spending dramatically, with arms factories now outproducing all NATO members combined. This has helped offset sanctions and provided financial benefits to Russian families, though at the cost of inflation and higher interest rates hurting non-military sectors.Dickinson adds that Russian oil and gas exports have been redirected to Global South markets, and Western companies that left Russia have been replaced with domestic firms — enriching Putin’s loyalists. “A ceasefire would place this entire economic model in jeopardy,” he warns.Politically, the war has helped solidify Putin’s grip on power. “Virtually all potential opponents of the regime are now exiled, jailed, or dead,” Dickinson writes. Russia’s transformation into a dictatorship is complete, and there is no serious anti-war movement. Under current conditions, Putin is widely expected to remain in power until at least 2036.There are also security concerns. A peace deal would require the demobilization of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers — men “brutalized by the savagery of the war in Ukraine” and accustomed to wages far higher than what they can earn in civilian life. Dickinson warns that their return could result in a surge in violent crime. Putin, he notes, “is acutely aware that Red Army soldiers returning from the Soviet war in Afghanistan played a key role in the spiraling banditry of the 1990s. He will be in no hurry to risk a repeat.”In short, Putin is not merely rejecting peace — he is choosing war because, from his perspective, it is politically, economically, and strategically advantageous.