March 12, 2025 - 10:00am
Ukraine’s readiness to accept a 30-day ceasefire is, on the face of it, a broadly positive development. After weeks of public tensions between US President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, bilateral relations seem to be back on track. Zelensky will be invited to the White House and, after Kyiv proactively put together ceasefire proposals, Trump cannot criticise it for being an obstacle to peace. More practically, US military aid and intelligence sharing have been restored. This will prove a relief after the cut-offs put Ukrainian forces under severe pressure in Russia’s Kursk region, thereby risking one of Kyiv’s few bargaining chips for future negotiations.
A question mark now hovers over Ukraine’s presidential elections. This ceasefire appears to fit in with the US plan for Zelensky to face the public at the polling booth after an initial truce, the winner then negotiating permanent peace with Moscow. Whether that is still Washington’s intention remains uncertain, but the US administration was serious enough to recently hold talks with opposition figures Yulia Tymoshenko and Petro Poroshenko to assess the likelihood of an early vote.
For his part, Russian President Vladimir Putin has long pushed the narrative that postponed elections under martial law render Zelensky illegitimate, and mean he cannot sign agreements with him. Since this is a topic on which the White House and Kremlin have common ground, Putin will likely demand such a vote — no matter the associated difficulties — as a condition for full-scale peace negotiations to begin.
What of the coming days? Secretary of State Marco Rubio yesterday stressed that “the ball is now in Russia’s court”, and the US is doing all it can to ensure that Moscow duly volleys it back. Trump has indicated his intention to phone the Russian leader, his Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is reportedly visiting Putin this week, and Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has not ruled out contact with the US administration.
While Ukrainian officials judge a less than 50% chance of Putin agreeing to the truce, it is in fact likely to be 100%. Despite Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s downbeat assessment that his country will not accept compromises that jeopardise lives, the Kremlin understands the propaganda value of presenting itself as a peacemaker. At stake here is a prize of infinitely greater value than a few more stretches of bombed-out land: the ear of a US president sympathetic to Moscow.
The Kremlin knows that Trump wants a quick deal to stick on his Nobel Peace Prize application form, putting it squarely in Moscow’s interest to appear to be working towards an agreement. In return for staying in Trump’s good books, Russia can hope for an end to sanctions, a much-desired reset in bilateral relations with America, and an invitation to come in from the cold of diplomatic isolation. Russia’s SVR intelligence service this morning boasted of the CIA and SVR directors agreeing to henceforth maintain regular contact. Russia is unlikely to risk upsetting the famously capricious Trump as he pulls away from Europe and Nato, lest he suddenly change course to spite Moscow for having botched “his” peace process.
Moscow will likely abide by the ceasefire, despite having violated multiple truces before. The Kremlin understands that breaking the armistice would constitute self-sabotage, with the real game to be played at the full-scale peace negotiations to follow. Moscow will then take advantage of its rapprochement with Washington to push for concessions unacceptable to Ukrainians and Europeans. Western security officials indicate that Putin will make maximalist demands on land, peacekeepers, and Ukraine’s neutrality. As the best-case scenario, he may win significant concessions, with the US using the threat of fighting without military aid and intelligence to twist Ukraine’s arm. Even in the worst-case scenario, if those demands force talks to break down, his forces are back to war having rested, restocked and regrouped.
“Prepare for the worst and hope for the best,” counselled Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov before the US-Ukraine discussions. An old proverb, yet entirely fitting for current circumstances. While the truce may appear to be in Kyiv’s favour, Moscow can still hope for the best.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePutin would be foolish to trust the West or Ukraine. They will use the ceasefire to re-arm Ukraine as happened with the Minsk Agreements.
It seems the truth is unpalatable to some
… as both Angela Merkel and François Hollande admitted…
Russia will be the enemy of Western Europe for the remainder of the 21st Century, and most likely beyond. What’s to hide?
Keep poking the bear, it’ll eventually take your hand off.
Correct! What’s your point? Russia and Western Europe will be at war soon enough!
Why? And how?
I can’t help but think this is backwards. For months it has been Ukraine pushing for some sort of ceasefire, so for me, it is turning things on their head be implying it was Ukraine that had to be persuaded.
Though for Ukraine, the point of a ceasefire has never been (and still isn’t) to lead to peace; the point of a ceasefire, whole or the idiotic partial ceasefire/no-fly-zone proposal floated by Macron, is to give Ukraine breathing space to regroup, rearm, reorganise, and then again attack Russia with renewed vigour.
It is not Russia that owes a “goodwill gesture”. In March 2021, as the peace negotiations in Istanbul were at the cusp of success, Germany and France persuaded Russia to withdraw its troops from Kiev as a gesture of goodwill, to facilitate the conclusion of the Istanbul talks. Russia did, and the West promptly urged Ukraine to abandon the peace deal.
Later that year, the West persuaded Russia to enter into the “grain deal”. Russia duly upheld its end of the bargain, but Ukraine promptly abused the protected shipping corridor for military activities, and the West never honoured its end.
So I can see Russia playing along, but I’d be very surprised if Russia were to see any good in this proposal.
I’m a bit confused by your comments. Surely none of this is about “goodwill gestures”, whether in negotiations or at any other time. It is about the simple fact that Russia, in full view of the world, took over Crimea and several other areas in 2014, ostensibly in support of oppressed citizens, but in reality (and here I think we should believe Putin’s rhetoric) to ‘regain’ greater Russia; this was followed by by the wider invasion in 2022, which pretended to be against fascism in the guise of the democratically, freely elected government of Ukraine. Russia has never shown goodwill. The only gesture of goodwill they could reasonably offer would be to withdraw from the territories they invaded and have colonised.
As experienced analysts do not tire of insisting upon, actually listening to what the other side is saying is the surest way to understanding. One of the great surprises of the opening of the Soviet secret archives was that there were not secrets – the minutes of internal deliberations tracked the public announcements.
With that said, it is surprising that you should ascribe to Putin something he not only never said, but there is also ample evidence of the opposite. Preserving the neutrality of Ukraine would have left Crimea with Ukraine; implementation of the Minsk Accords or the Istanbul settlement would have left Donbass with Ukraine.
Exactly correct! Point me to when Russia ever “showed goodwill” since Ivan the Terrible was Tsar!
No, it was widely reported at the time that Putin pulled the troops away from Kiev after Western leaders told him it was unfair to expect Zelenskiy to negotiate with “a gun to his head”.
Soon after the pullback, perfidious Albion (in the shape of BoJo) flew to Kiev and told Zelenskiy to abandon the peace deal. This was also reported at the time, and confirmed later by Naftali Bennet who was part of the peace process.
Merkel, Hollande and Proroshenko have all admitted that the Minsk Accords were designed to buy Ukraine time to fortify their military to the point they could take the restive Eastern Oblasts back by force, not by granting concessions (eg like greater autonomy or the restoration of Russian language rights).
Russia has showed a remarkable constancy when it comes to keeping its word; it was the US that abrogated the INF, the ABM, the Open Skies agreement and indeed, by instigating the 204 Maidan coup, the original Budapest Memorandum that stated Ukraine should stay neutral.
I see The Ministry of Truth is busy today.
The failure of both Minsk treaties to honour the rights of Russian speakers in the Eastern provinces( including a lot of incidents which have possibly been scrubbed from the Internet as a form of censorship)is a reason why the war started in the first place.
And the issue of Ukraine joining NATO. It’s highly unlikely that Russia will accept a peace unless there are guarantees on both issues.
At one time this is where the UN came in handy- as in Kosovo or East Timor.
It remains to be seen if that organisation can still be trusted- or whether a multi lateral peacekeeping force acceptable to both sides is a better bet.
If you believe Putin cares one bit about anybody’s rights, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Exactly. If he buys it, I’ll throw in the Sydney Harbour Bridge for free!
As opposed to Zelenskiy, Starmer, Macron, Hollande, Cookies Nudelman, Blinken, Bareback, Biden, Netanyahu, Obama, etc etc …
Well the UN is more anti USA than it is pro Russia or Eu so would likely try and crash any deal as well as getting up to the usual antics we saw in the Balkans, DRC, Haiti etc – not just sexual exploitation but wholesale theft and fraud. How about former Soviet Republics in the Russian speaking areas and Poland, Moldova, Czech and Bulgarian in the Ukrainian speaking areas? You may ask “what could possibly go wrong” BUT surely this is a better bet than the UN – language problem is sorted and it is to be hoped even wary neighbours would rub along better than total strangers. Also isn’t Trump thinking about defunding the UN and kicking it out of NY?. After the UN support for the Hamas atrocities in 2023 i think “closing it down” is too good for them, but better than nothing.
There’s a difference from the Missions you cite of the UN and the ones I refer to. Those were broad based efforts involving peacekeeping at various levels- Civil Administration, Troops, Economic reconstruction.
Overall both those Missions were more successful.
No possible reason Russia’s leaders will play this game. Washington posing as a mediator between Moscow and Kyiv is either just a PR smokescreen or it’s a prelude to resumption of war on Russia and Europe. Russia’s not going away but US hegemony is in crisis and needs alternatives.
The war over Ukraine was never only about de-Russifying the composite country created in 1993 and hitching its resources. It was always intended to separate Russia from Europe and give the US the same kind of play it had in Russia before the arrival of Putin and effectively break up the Russian Federation.
Only the first of those objectives has been attained. The issue to focus on is how far US geopolitics now prioritises gaining peaceful access to Russian resources on a par with that accorded China by strategic accords rather than proxy war.
Otherwise the game’s not changed and Trump is just burden shifting to help rescue Federal finances.
We won’t necessarily find out the answer straight away for reasons some tick above. And it’s also possible given what we know about Trump and his heteroclite Administration, that Donald doesn’t even realise he can’t play all ends against each other here as he likes to do and is therefore in no position to determine strategic US interests.
But we can say objectively that the consequences of renewed proxy war will be much less advantageous to US geo economic and geo political interests than a mutually satisfactory accord with Russia, whatever the consequences for the Kyiv regime. Is cleaning up Ukraine that difficult now we have to leave it to the Russians?
“It was always intended to separate Russia from Europe and give the US the same kind of play it had in Russia before the arrival of Putin and effectively break up the Russian Federation“. Good. An entirely sensible policy. I am not saying this will be easy, but the end goal must be a Russia separated from Siberia, and utterly crippled both economically and militarily. That must be the West’s goal for the 21st Century.
Haven’t you got something more constructive to be getting on with? Haven’t you Neocons wrecked enough lives already?
Ukraine – sorry to say this, but the losing party currently – offering a ceasefire to a belligerent Russia, is not anything Russia need accept.
However, it does signal an important change – that of American primacy in the negotiations. American can now support the ceasefire proposition, and demand Russia respond not to Ukraine, but to the US. It makes the US the prime negotiator.
Russia is now asking the question, not of what Ukraine will give, but of what the US will give, in return for that ceasefire. The US and Russia will now bargain, with the Ukraine facing a reality that it will have to accept (even if it voices complaints). Trump will give Russia things – stuff the US can give up easily – Crimea, no NATO membership, demilitarised Ukraine, semi-independent Donbass.
The question will be what Russia will trade to seal the deal? Withdrawal of Russian troops given US assurances? A new nuclear arms limitation deal? Lifting of sanctions or rebuilding of Nord Sea 2? Or help in dealing with Iran?
The US can reject a bad deal and allow the Ukraine to keep fighting, with more US backing and more US weapons. Perhaps allow Ukraine to target Russia infrastructure like train routes or airports. It can close down proxy supply routes for Russia via Greek shipping or Kazakhstan, or offer trade concessions to China in return for Russian sanctions. A devious but limited US a la Biden is easier for the Russian’s to deal with than an angry full-on US a la Trump.
This whole “no NATO membership” thing is all well and good, but it is predicated on the US remaining in NATO. If the US leaves (as seems at least possible), then the remaining members can offer Ukraine membership. It seems clear that Western Europe will be at war with Russia soon enough, and it is in Western Europe’s interest to have the fighting in that war take place as far East as possible. Oh, and if any European nation ever considers rebuilding Nordstream 2, then it had probably just surrender to the Russians right now.
The good thing to come out of the latest developments is that Western Europe has now finally realised that Russia can never be trusted, and that the US probably doesn’t “have its back”. Hopefully any pause at this point will lead to a massive rearmament by Western Europe (including a nuclear rearmament).