March 14, 2025 - 11:00am
Russian President Vladimir Putin has stopped short of rejecting the US-proposed unconditional 30-day ceasefire, but neither has he accepted it. “The idea itself is correct […] but there are issues to discuss,” he said yesterday.
Putin’s rhetorical sidestep is an unsurprising but nonetheless important reminder that achieving a lasting peace in Ukraine will not be easy. US President Donald Trump still hopes for a quick settlement, telling reporters yesterday that “we have to get [the war] over with fast”. The sentiment is admirable, but Trump and his advisors should not let their ambition for a deal — or their desire for speed — come before American interests, even if this means walking away.
While Trump’s Oval Office blow-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made clear the divergence between US and Ukrainian interests, Putin’s refusal to immediately accept the 30-day ceasefire shows that America and Russia do not share a common interest either. Winning on the battlefield as Ukraine barely hangs on, Putin has no incentive to agree to a ceasefire right now, especially a temporary one that would allow Ukraine to rest and regroup. It’s true that Russia’s army would also benefit from a pause in fighting, but Ukraine is considerably more desperate. Putin’s best move is to press on Kyiv’s weaknesses, maximising his leverage before negotiating.
Trump might try to force Putin to the bargaining table, either by imposing sanctions — as he threatened in January — or stepping up military aid to Ukraine. Yet he’s likely to find this approach much less successful with Russia than it was with Ukraine. Putin has already survived three years of punishing economic and financial sanctions, and is not dependent on the United States to keep his war machine running.
Putin did not shut the door on the US proposal, however, signalling a willingness to halt ongoing hostilities if certain conditions are met. Among these is the requirement that any ceasefire leads to a long-term settlement which would “solve the root causes” of the 2022 invasion — a reference to Russia’s demands for a neutral Ukraine, kept outside of Nato and with no European or American forces based inside the country.
These demands should not be a dealbreaker for the United States, because they don’t force Washington to give much up. The Trump administration has already ruled out Nato membership and US security guarantees or troops for Ukraine. The European option, including security guarantees and a peacekeeping force led by British and French soldiers, is largely a distraction. Europe is not capable of stationing a force of any meaningful size in Ukraine without US logistical support, and in any case lacks the political will to do so without a US backstop.
The most credible way to ensure Ukraine’s future security remains armed neutrality. This would leave Kyiv with no security guarantees, but still sufficiently well-equipped to defend itself without external support. It’s also the approach most aligned with Washington’s interests, as it leaves the US with no enduring commitments to Ukraine.
Trump and his advisors will need to push back on some of Putin’s conditions, however, including those which require onerous caps on Ukraine’s military. If Washington wants a lasting peace that allows for long-term US-Russia relations, Ukraine must be able to defend itself. Mutual assurances between Kyiv and Moscow that place geographic limits on military forces, long-range strike systems or military exercises could be one way to extract Russian concessions while reducing Ukrainian anxiety about a peace with no external guarantees.
At this point, America’s primary interest in Ukraine is to wind down its own involvement, both to conserve resources and reduce the risk of entanglement in a direct war with Russia. Trump and his advisors have a narrow path to peace, and they’ll be seeking to avoid any agreement which ties America down in Ukraine or concedes too much to Russia. No deal may just be better than a bad one.
jekavanagh
UnHerd seems to be one of the few non-US places where you get sensible articles on the Ukraine situation. Good stuff.
Putin has basically said that he will have a ceasefire when Ukraine surrenders. Trump’s ‘bigger sanctions’ stick is meaningless.
No, he has said Russia’s security concerns must be heeded and addressed.
But as his main security concern is that he does not control Ukraine your comment actually agrees with TP.
In other words, the solution is to go back to the situation before 2014.
Only with a devastated and truncated Ukraine – a result clear-eyed Western strategists saw as inevitable if the US and NATO implemented their expansion ambitions.
What expansionist ambitions? Seems to me that it is Russia, or rather putin, that wants to expand (Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova – Transnistria) Ironically his invasion led to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
Your post perfectly highlights the unbridgeable gap between the fact-based community and the narrative-based community.
Historically, facts have had the unfortunate propensity to eventually assert themselves over narratives. But there is always a first time!
What facts are these?
It’s Russia that invaded Ukraine 3 times over the last decade, not the other way around. It’s Russia that invaded Georgia, not the other way around.
For all this talk of NATO expansionism, NATO is a voluntary alliance, and those eastern bloc countries ASKED to join because they feared what Russia would do, and Russias actions in Ukraine and Georgia have shown that was an incredibly wise thing to do.
You also ignore the fact that NATO never stationed artillery on Russias borders or carried out exercises near its territory at the behest of the Kremlin until they started their invasion of Ukraine.
There’s only one party in this saga with expansionist aims, and it isn’t the west or Ukraine
No, Russia only invaded Ukraine once. In 2014, they were already in Crimea : legally. The governing authority of Crimea wanted no part of the illegal Ukrainian government and asked to be protected by the Russian troops already there.
In the Donbas, the Ukrainian government started oppressing the people and the people rose up against them. After the fighting started, the Russians bankrolled Warner, to assist/protect the Russian affiliated people of the Donbas.
The 2014 NATO coop in Ukraine replaced a mostly neutral government with one hostile to Russia. The 91 constitution of Ukraine specified would be neutral regarding Russia and NATO. This was a precondition for Ukraine leaving the CIS. After 2014 Russia started negotiating for a neutral Ukraine, but while not a part of NATO, NATO was non the less arming Ukraine so that it could attack Russia. So your comments while mostly true, are completely disingeuous.
What a load of absolute b****cks! Just because you repeat a lie often enough it doesn’t make it the truth.
Ukraine didn’t oppress those in the Donbas, they were battling separatists many of whom were Russian forces out of uniform (as almost any news article from the time will attest).
Crimea was Ukrainian territory and annexed completely out of the blue, it was quickly overrun due to the large numbers of Russian military already stationed there.
Im intrigued to know where you’re from, as it clearly isn’t an English speaking country
“What expansionist ambitions”?
1995 Yugoslavia 1999 Serbia, 2001 Afghanistan, 2003 Iraq, 2011 Libya and 2014 Syria. In 2014 a coop replaced the elected moderately pro Russian government of Ukraine w/a hostile one. The new governmetn oppressed the Russian speaking people of the Donbas.
Note that all of these country’s were at the end of the Cold War in the Russian Sphere of influence.
Russia have responded to all of these with a great deal of restraint.
Georgia is a muddled situation. But in 2008 NATO/Georgia were making anti Russian moves there. The 2008 war was provoked, just as the “Special Military Operation” was provoked.
If you’d like to debate this, we can debate. Generally, most of the time people don’t want to debate me, since their whole position relies on unsubstanciate claims which are easily shot down.
Try reading more varied news sources rather than regurgitating pro Kremlin nonsense from Twitter. Nothing you say bares any semblance to reality
I do listen to varied news sources. Not only that, but I study history and generally know more than what is on the surface. This gives me a good way of knows when and what “news sources” are full of it. In these cases, except for Georgia and the Midan coop, every thing else I mentioned is nothing but fact. All one has to do is look at newspapers from the period to verify. No news sources say were weren’t there with “boots on the ground”
Keep on arguing. You are showing every thinking person, that the words that you write, are not to be trusted.
It looks like the makings of a deal are on the table:
1. Russia gets the four oblasts and keeps Crimea;
2. In return, the US gets Greenland and Panama; and
3. Israel gets Gaza, the West Bank, all of Jerusalem, southern Lebanon up to the Litani, and the Golan.
Perfectly fair all around – job done!
You forgot point 4. Ukraine gets invaded by Russia in 2 years, when it’s had time to rearm and regroup. And Point 5. Drawing on his success and the US and Europe capitulation to his demands, Putin sets about ‘liberating’ the Russian minorities in the Baltic states, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
You’re right about your point 4 – if the result of the current “peace talks” is to give Ukraine time to rearm and regroup, then yes, we’ll have another war in two years or so. Allowing Ukraine to gear up for an attack on Russia was (as François Hollande and Angela Merkel admitted) the motivation for the Minsk Accords. Russia has essentially said “been there, done that, won’t be fooled again”. Hence the Russian insistence on addressing the root causes of the conflict.
Regarding the Russian minorities – this affects the Baltic states, not Poland, which was quite efficient in its ethnic cleansing, or the Czech Republic. And yes, there is a flash point there. It bears remembering that e.g. Estonia is denying its ethnic Russian minority citizen rights, in blatant defiance of the hallowed principles of the EU, the OSCE, and the European Charter of Human Rights. The EU had to create a separate European passport for Estonians of Russian ethnicity.
But the Balts have been secure in the US’ protective hand over their revanchism. And anyway, the whole point of the Ukraine fighting Russia was that NATO had built up Ukraine’s army into the strongest in Europe and thought it was strong enough, not to beat Russia, but to weaken Russia enough to cause domestic turmoil in Russia (a plan that of course has come a cropper). Try as you might, it will not be possible to build the Balts up to the Ukrainian level of strength.
I really can’t figure the argument that Russia should be allowed unlimited military capability, but Ukraine should not. This makes no sense at all. And it was Russia that invaded Ukraine (twice) after all.
Ukraine needs sufficient defence going forwards. For defence. Like any other country. I can’t see them having the manpower, resources, money, weapons or will to restart the war if and when there’s a stable settlement.
Meanwhile, the rest of Europe is going to increase defence spending, but there’s this bizarre insistence that Ukraine must not. When they’re at far higher risk.
Russia can bleat on as much as it likes about the supposed “root cause of the conflict”. But there are multiple causes and no general agreement on this point. You are taking opinion for fact.
So who is going to bell the cat?
The simple if sad dynamic is that – as the EU’s star diplomat Josep “the Gardener” Borrell said in 2022 – Ukraine’s sponsors US, NATO, and EU resolved that the the decision should fall on the battlefield.
Now Ukraine and her sponsors are comprehensively losing.
Historically, it has been the victors in a war that have shaped the outcome, not the losers.
In retrospect, the collective West should have left well enough alone with the NATO accession of the Vilnius Group. As all US foreign policy experts predicted, attempting to extend NATO to Ukraine would precipitate war with Russia. And so it has transpired.
So if I understand you correctly
Ukraine shouldn’t be allowed to join a defensive alliance for protection
Ukraine shouldn’t be able to build up its armed forces for protection
There should be no international forces in Ukraine to keep the peace
They can trust Russia won’t try again in a few years (once it’s rearmed but Ukraine has been barred from doing so) despite Russia breaking a written treaty promising to respect Ukrainian sovereignty
But in your eyes it’s the Ukrainians who aren’t negotiating in good faith?
And it would be alright with you if a Chinese directed coop replaced the government of Mexico with one hostile to the United States and that the Chinese started arming Mexico to be able to wage war against the US.
I suppose that depends on what they’re keeping in this coop of yours, chickens maybe?
However America hasn’t armed Ukraine to wage war on Russia, there’s no plausible scenario in that Ukraine will ever be powerful enough to invade Russia.
I’m also tired of hearing that the protests that ousted Yanukovych were an American coup. He was ousted because he was elected on the promise of closer ties with Europe, only to completely betray the electorate and instead cosy up to Russia.
I’m sure the Americans were happy with the turn of events, but even if they did support the protestors why is that seemingly beyond the pale, while Russias constant interference in other countries affairs (and its attempted assassination of Yushchenko at the turn of the century) never mentioned? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander after all
The problem is BB, that different perspectives arise, depending on which historical starting point is used. Yours seems to be, at the earliest,1991. But the reigning Russian perspective starts centuries earlier. In the context of that perspective, western Ukraine’s 21st century turn westward, into the embrace of the Rules Based World Order, has been Russia’s most significant security threat. If Ukraine is to stay western leaning Russia will have to be paid security dues.
We were told that it was an uprising in 2014. But I never bought into that fake narrative. For one, I have been involved in pro-life causes since the early 90s. Being on the ground and seeing events, and then catching what the MSN says about them has given me a good ability to know when they are lying.
Moreover, popular uprisings, have their own tempo and timing and logic. None of these occured in the Midan “coop”. It was practically overnight, but how a real uprising would occur over a period of at least months, these things build. It was obvious that it was staged in order provide a fig leaf. Sometime listen to those diplomats who no have “slipped the leash”, such as Jeffery Sachs. They will tell you that that colleages who where involved have admitted to the fact that it was a NATO coop.
There is a way of ferreting out information. You are smart enough to do it. Perhaps you have lived with lies so long that any challenge to your world view is upsetting. Perhaps you have a vested interest in the lies. Me I have a vested interest in the truth, which is enough in most cases to overcome my desire for the comfort of familiar lies.
There are several assumptions underlying your comment that are faulty and go to the nub of the problem.
As for “defensive alliance”, NATO forfeited the claim to being a defensive alliance when it launched an unprovoked war of aggression against Serbia. And this was not a momentary aberration, it was the logical outcome of NATO deliberately repositioning itself after the demise of the Warsaw Pact had deprived NATO of its raison d’être.
The Istanbul Agreements did not call for a complete demilitarisation of Ukraine, but of a limit on Ukraine’s force size compatible with defence, but precluding the offensive capabilities NATO had built into the Ukrainian armed forces after 2014.
Russian disquiet about its the threats to its security are not so much linked to NATO expansion as such, but to the US intermediate range missile bases the US installed under NATO cover, first in Poland and Romania, and – as star diplomat, brilliant security strategist and foreign policy genius Antony Blinken memorably told Lavrov in January 2022 – intended for Ukraine as well.
Clearly, the point about a peace settlement would have to be to eliminate any reasons Russia would have for renewed intervention – i.e. go to the root causes of the conflict and address the security architecture of Europe in accordance with the principles of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. Russia would have been content with the implementation of the Minsk Accords (incidentally binding international law), but as both François Hollande and Angela Merkel confirmed, Ukraine and NATO saw the Minsk Accords merely as breathing space to arm up Ukraine for an attack on Russia. If that is not bad faith, the words have lost their meaning.
If you lived next to Russia, with its long history of invading, interference and brutal treatment of its neighbours, would you be happy with them them being able to limit the size of your military to such a level you wouldn’t be able to protect yourself from their actions?
Please don’t confuse them with the facts. From the earliest days of the war, Ukraine was stating they would be willing to not have NATO membership. This hasn’t exactly caused evil men like Putin to stop the war and go back to their land. They are animated by fantasies of grandeur through expansionism and restoration of some glorious past.
Speaking of facts, why don’t you look at the Istambul agreement, which was agreed to int the “earliest days of the war”. It gives lie to the statement that you made, because it agreed to that, but after a visit from Boris, it was scottched
There are many ways I could wish for a more perfect world, but the facts right now are stark: The US’ cunning plan to “overstretch” Russia, as the RAND Corporation’s strategy paper mapped it out, has come a cropper. Indeed, the downside risks of the strategy, which RAND also set out, are now manifesting themselves.
Instead of a weakened Russia, we have a much stronger Russia. Instead of the war leading to a return of the Yeltsin years and a resumption of the looting of Russian assets by Western carpet-baggers, Russia will now dictate the terms.
When you play va banque, you have to accept that losing is one of the possible outcomes. Doubling down on failure is not a winning strategy.
You forgot Canada. Canadians want to be American just as much as Greenland does, i.e. not much.
“Perfectly fair all around – job done”!
Point number 3 is not fair, and will not work. You have to understand that the conflict in the Middle East began 75 years ago with the creation of the “Jewish State”. A necessary ingredient in baking that state, was the ethnic cleansing of the people who had lived there for generations, (perhaps thousands of years). The founders of Israel expected the Palestinians to eventually give up after Israel had demonstrated the uselessness of trying to change the outcome.
However, the Palestinians never gave up and we have had warfare and terrorism, (on both sides), since 1948. The Palestinians have always demanded a state where everyone has equal rights, (and that includes equal voting rights). That is what they mean by the slogan, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free”. However, they are tired of the war, and many are prepared to accept a two-state solution.
But, Israel has never contenanced anything but Greater Israel which would occupy all of the old Mandate of Palestine, and perhaps portions of the rest of the region. (After Yom Kippur, they played at a two state solution, but at the same time, they slowed and sabataged all negotions, util Yitzhak Rabbin was assasinated for even making a show of being commited to the process). So far, “greater Israel “has meant an aparthied state. Such a state guarantees that the war will never end.
Baring either two states or truely democratic state, the only other solutions are the ethnic cleansing or the extermination of the Palestinians. If either of these is actually attempted, every state in the region will be destablized. Those leaders who attempt to not wage war on Israel will fall. In all likelihood, this will be the start of WW3.
It would seem that all the semitic tribes, Arab and Jewish, are notably resistant to assimilation, even when migrant enclaves emerge in other countries. Ethnic-centric states therefore seem to be the only workable arrangement in the middle east for the time being. You could say that the consequences of the collapse of the Ottoman empire are still playing out.
Anyone attempting to foretell Trump’s actions is treading on quicksand!
I don’t think Trump even knows, he just spouts the first idea that comes into his head
No mention of the crucial issue of what territory is to be ceded? Come on Jennifer, its the single biggest point of dispute.
That’s not actually the crucial issue. That’s whether Ukraine survives as an independent state free of Russian control. Where the borders are is far less important. Russia doesn’t care where the borders are if it knows they can come back later and redraw them. It’s about control (and independence), not territory.
You’re closer to the mark than Mr. Rigg, but still haven’t struck paydirt. It is not land, it is not “control” it is about security. In 1962, we risked Amegeddon to insure that missles were not placed in Cuba. At the end of the 80s, Russia abandoned East Germany to its fate in return for assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. Ukraine was the final line in the sand for Russia. After the NATO/US coop in 2014, replaced a moderately neutral Ukraine with and anti-Russian one, Russia still pressed for a diplomatic solution, (the Minsk accords). Merkel herself admitted that Germany’s, (and France’s), guarantees to this accord were only designed to buy time to build up Ukraine’s warmaking capability. In Jan 2022, Russia felt that all diplomatic bridges had been burned and time was running out.
During all of the cold war. Finland was allowed to be free, on the understanding that it would not side with NATO. Russia did not control Finland, but NATO abided by the decision to keep Finland out of it.
I believe that safety, rather than control is in Russia’s mind. However, after the West calously ignored the Minks accords, any neutralization of Ukraine, will have to be in a fashion to prevent Ukraine from ever consider joining an anti-Russian alliance again.
From a purely strategic military perspective, Putin’s demands appear reasonable, given that the Minsk accords were, by Merkel’s own admission, negotiated in bad faith to buy time for Ukraine to rearm.
Getting into this war didn’t serve American interests, which is among the reasons why Trump was elected. As it stands, Russia is winning and that carries some negotiating weight.
It did serve its interests though otherwise they wouldn’t have done it.
The yanks annual military budget is $850 billion, and in the last 3 years they’ve given Ukraine $60 billion, or around $20 billion a year (most of which has gone to its own arms companies anyway).
So for just 2.5% of its annual budget it has crippled one of its major rivals and seen how its weapons perform on the battlefield, all without risking a single soldier.
They’ve got a bargain in my eyes
There is two ways to interpret the parlé that is occurring right now.
Either Putin is speaking in good faith or Zeklenskyy is.
So far Putin has been open about his conditions for a ceasefire including his concerns about Ukraine using a ceasefire to strategically redeploy its forces and rearm, especially that America has recontinued military support.
This seems reasonable to me especially that Zelenskyy is on the back foot with territorial losses and the increasing possibility that he will lose Kursk.
Zelenskyy on the other hand is saying Putin is stalling, presumably because Putin isn’t immediately accepting a 30 day ceasefire despite no mechanisms being in place to monitor the ceasefire. This indicates to me that Zelenskyy is desperate for an immediate ceasefire because he knows he can’t hold the frontline especially in Kursk. In other words, he knows Putin is slowly advancing.
At the same time, I’m still getting the impression that Zelenskyy is still trying to rally support on behalf of a liberal European order which is more to do with geopolitics than it is diplomacy to end the war with the intention of trying to maintain anti-Putin sentiments despite the fact that Zelenskyy campaigned to end the Donbass war but when elected actually escalated it with the help of American military hardware.
So at this point, I think Putin is being far more realistic and speaking more honestly compared to Zelenskyy who I think has unrealistic conditions attached to both a 30 day ceasefire and a peace agreement, mainly in relation to regaining lost territory.
Ultimately I think Putin is trying to create a territorial buffer around the Donbass and Crimea and so won’t give up territory so easily considering the treatment of Russian speaking population in the past.