Russia faces the challenge of keeping Trump engaged in ending the conflict while protecting its own interests, which clash with America’s ambitions
With the caveat that if everything the American and Russian negotiators are discussing behind the scenes regarding peace in Ukraine is not known, one can make a reasonable assessment of how things stand based on public statements made not only by the US and Russia, but also the Ukrainian and European leadership, as well as some inbuilt difficulties in reaching a peaceful settlement – because with regard to the end game in Ukraine, the views and interests of the parties involved differ deeply.
US and Russia officials met in Riyadh on February 18 following a conversation between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting had a broader agenda that went beyond the issue of Ukraine, and understandably so, because the Ukraine conflict is rooted in US security policies in Europe which the Russians have viewed as a threat to national security. Inevitably, therefore, the search for a resolution to the conflict has to be embedded in efforts to improve US-Russia relations in general.
Accordingly, at the Riyadh meeting, the two sides agreed to take steps to normalize the operations of their respective diplomatic missions and lay the groundwork for future cooperation on geopolitical issues and for economic and investment opportunities following the end of the Ukraine conflict, for which high level teams will begin working on a path to achieve in a way that is enduring, sustainable, and acceptable to all sides.
After a meeting between Trump and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in the White House turned into a fiasco, US and Ukrainian delegations met in Riyadh on March 11. At the White House meeting, Zelensky maintained his hardline posture on fighting the Russians, refusing any recourse to diplomacy to end the conflict, instead insisting on obtaining security guarantees from the US. In Riyadh – after the US temporarily blocked arms supplies and intelligence sharing – Zelensky discarded his obstinate position and agreed to an immediate ceasefire for 30 days.
The joint statement issued on the occasion has nuances of interest. The intention is to “enact” an immediate ceasefire, which normally would mean that it cannot be ‘immediate’, as the details of what goes into the ceasefire arrangement would have to be clarified. The US, according to the joint statement, will communicate to Moscow that Russian reciprocity is the key to peace. But reciprocity in what time frame is the question?
The approach taken suggests that Zelensky is now genuinely wedded to peace, but that if Russia wants to discuss the conditions associated with the ceasefire and the next steps required to achieve peace that is “enduring, sustainable and acceptable to all sides,” Putin would be rejecting peace.
Without waiting for a Russian response, the US has announced in this joint statement that it will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine. This means once again buttressing Ukraine’s capacity to fight and wielding a stick against Russia. The US has also legitimized in principle the Ukrainian demand for the “return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children,” which is a way for Ukraine to claim sovereignty over the people in the regions in the east now claimed by Russia following referendums. This is also a loaded issue as it was used by the International Criminal Court to egregiously declare Putin a war criminal.
On the issue of long term security for Ukraine, the American and Ukrainian delegations will hold negotiations and the specific proposals that emerge will be discussed by the US with Russia. What these specific proposals are is unclear, as Trump has repeatedly rejected the idea of Ukraine joining NATO or receiving security guarantees from America, as this would open the door to a direct clash with Russia in the future. Trump believes that a deal on mineral resources with Ukraine will guarantee its long term security. The Ukrainians are determined to use Europe as a counterbalance to US pressure on them, and hence in the joint statement, the Ukrainians have insisted that the Europeans should be involved in the peace process.
The course of peace in Ukraine is beset by many problems. The issue extends beyond Ukraine’s security – it is equally, if not more, about Russia’s security, which ultimately drove its decision to take military action. At the heart of this has been NATO’s eastward expansion, the regime change in Ukraine provoked by the US, the capture of power in Ukraine by what Russia sees as forces wedded to a Nazi-like ideology and hostile to anything Russian, and so on. The declared goals of Russia’s military operation are the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.
These goals are unlikely to be met. On the contrary, Zelensky is seen as an embodiment of Ukrainian resistance and continues to be lionized. If he was rebuffed by Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, the European leaders collectively embraced and honored him immediately after his US visit, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer arranging for him to be received by King Charles, which could be interpreted as a snub to Trump. If Trump has called Zelensky a dictator and advocated for elections in Ukraine, the Europeans do not question his democratic credentials and see him as fully legitimate.
Peace in Europe, and durably in Ukraine, cannot be achieved if Europe is preparing for a long term confrontation with Russia. In early March, the EU decided on a massive €800 billion re-armament program, a five-part plan to bolster Europe’s defense industry and increase its military capability and help provide urgent military support for Ukraine The member states would be given more fiscal space for defense investments, as well as €150 billion in loans for those investments.
On March 11, in a meeting in Paris of 34 countries, French President Emmanuel Macron called on European and NATO military chiefs to draw up a plan “to define credible security guarantees” for Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and throw their full weight behind Ukraine. Macron has joined with Starmer to lead efforts to form a “coalition of the willing” to enforce an eventual ceasefire in Ukraine and give security guarantees to Ukraine that, according to the Elysée, should be “credible and long-term, and should be accompanied by unfailing support for the Ukrainian army.”
Earlier, the French defense minister stated that any form of demilitarization of Ukraine would be rejected. Starmer ratcheted up his rhetoric against Russia, saying on March 13 that “Putin’s appetite for conflict and for chaos is already there, and it will only grow,” and that Russia “is already menacing our skies, our waters, our streets and our national security.”
Differences between the US and Europe on NATO could mean less pressure on Russia on the NATO front. Whatever its defense plans, it will take many years for Europe to build its defense capabilities. Europe does not have a standing European army with a single command structure and collectively defined war plans or strategy outside of NATO.
On the other hand, with the US unable to discipline Europe, the security headaches for Russia will take a new turn. The EU leadership is profoundly hostile to Russia, whether it is the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy, Kaja Kallas, the EU commissioner for defense and space, Andrius Kubilius, etc. This will make peace understandings with Russia that much more difficult in the European framework.
Trump himself is a problem as he is wont to air his views publicly on sensitive matters rather than leaving his emissaries to conduct talks discreetly away from media glare, often contradicting himself, and being accommodating and threatening at intervals. He is constantly doing this on the Ukraine issue. He is a player, commentator, and umpire at the same time. Russia’s challenge is to keep him engaged, as he seems to genuinely want to end the conflict, and not alienate him, but at the same time protect Russia’s fundamental interests, even if means dissonance with Trump’s expansive positions.
Putin has tailored his approach as well as possible by remaining open to a ceasefire while seeking clarifications and answers to obvious questions that arise, which he has spelled out to the press. The uniform statement coming from the West is that the ball is in Putin’s court. Putin has to put the ball right back in the US and Ukraine’s court. Hostile forces in the West will promote a narrative against him, with Zelensky already claiming that Putin does not want peace. Let’s see how this plays out. Bridging the differences in interests and perspectives between the various sides will not be easy.
