Marta Gichko10:53, 27.03.25

Washington is actively discussing the possibility of recognizing the annexation of some territories, denying Ukraine NATO membership, or providing certain security guarantees for Russia.

The US is seeking to make progress on a ceasefire in Ukraine within Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office,  The Economist writes.

American analysts believe that Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky may be open to negotiations to end the war, but are not ready to stop the fighting.

“At this point, both leaders likely still see the risks of a prolonged war as less than the risks of an unsatisfactory settlement,” said the annual threat assessment by 18 US intelligence agencies, published on March 25.

This creates difficulties for the plans of President Donald Trump, who wants a quick end to the conflict. Although his administration claims significant progress in the negotiations, the process is still delayed, and Russia continues to make new demands.

The ceasefire talks demonstrate this very clearly. On March 11, the US and Ukraine proposed an immediate 30-day ceasefire. A week later, Russia narrowed the format to just an end to attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping in the Black Sea. On March 25, the White House announced an agreement to “ensure safe navigation,” but Moscow immediately said it would not enter into force until the Russian state bank was reconnected to the SWIFT system. The EU, in turn, stressed that this was possible only after Russia withdrew from Ukraine.

Even if the agreements come into force, their impact will be limited. Western sanctions no longer prevent Russian food and fertilizer exports, and Ukraine has independently opened its own sea corridor, displacing the Russian fleet. At best, the agreement will reduce shipping insurance rates and expand export opportunities for both sides.

Ukrainian and European officials are concerned that the Trump administration could make concessions to Russia without receiving real guarantees. The White House statement already includes promises to “help restore Russia’s access to global agricultural and fertilizer export markets, reduce marine insurance costs, and expand access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.”

At the same time, Kyiv is effectively deprived of US military aid for a certain period, while Russia receives proposals to ease sanctions. Washington is actively discussing the possibilities of recognizing the annexation of some territories, denying Ukraine membership in NATO, or providing certain security guarantees for Russia.

In a recent interview, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special representative for Ukraine, emphasized that his goal is not simply to end the war, but a new strategic pact with Russia that includes cooperation in oil and gas production, artificial intelligence, and even relations with Iran.

“Who doesn’t want to see a world like this?” he said, criticizing European countries for their support for Ukraine, calling it “attempts to be like Winston Churchill.”

Russia is dragging out negotiations

For now, Russia is trying to convince the Trump administration to ignore Ukraine and European concerns and forge a broader deal that takes into account the Kremlin’s interests. Kyiv, on the other hand, is trying to prove that Moscow is negotiating in bad faith, hoping that this will change the US position.

On March 25, Trump acknowledged that Putin may be dragging his feet on the process, but he did not express concern. “They may be dragging their feet. You know, I’ve been doing this for years,” he said in an interview with Newsmax TV, adding that both Russia and Ukraine “would like to see this over with.”

“American officials hope to reach a ceasefire within Trump’s first 100 days in office. The danger is that a hasty deal would mean abandoning Ukraine and making concessions to Russia,” the publication writes.

As American intelligence officials say, Putin has good reason to bide his time because “positive trends on the battlefield allow for strategic patience.” Zelensky fears that a bad deal “will cause domestic backlash and future danger.”

(C)UNIAN 2025