On Tuesday afternoon, both Russia and the United States gave a positive turn to the long telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, announcing a halt to attacks on the energy infrastructure between Russia and Ukraine.
It was good news for the American president, who has boasted about his ability to negotiate an agreement between conflicting nations. While he managed to pressure Ukraine into accepting an unconditional ceasefire, he expressed optimism that Russia also desired peace and would soon demonstrate it. But that was not the case. Not entirely.
Trump seems to have achieved at least a partial ceasefire, which includes attacks on energy infrastructure and hopes for more to occur, as well as a prisoner exchange. He quickly turned to social media to celebrate what he described as “a very good and productive conversation” with his Russian counterpart.
However, behind the flowery language of the phone call reading by Russia, there are some significant obstacles that the American president will have to address.
Russia demands that the United States stop sending weapons to Ukraine and that the country put an end to its “forced conscription,” thus denying it, in practice, the human resources and weapons necessary to continue military operations.
When the American delegation met with the Ukrainians in Saudi Arabia last week, they managed to get Kiev to accept their proposal for an “immediate” 30-day total ceasefire. The United States stated that “the ball” was now in Russia’s court.
A week later, the White House stated that “the movement towards peace” will begin with “an energetic ceasefire and infrastructure” before starting conversations to expand it to new de-escalation measures and a total ceasefire.
The Trump administration may celebrate this as a significant breakthrough, but Ukraine will likely interpret it as a strategy by Putin to gain time, while adding conditions and convincing the United States to give in.
Time will tell if both parties are ready to take another step towards a truce, which in turn will be a step towards a peace treaty.
To delve deeper into the topic, we spoke with Rodrigo Álvarez, professor of international relations at the Universidad Mayor de Chile.
1. What reasons would Putin have to accept a true ceasefire, and what reasons would he have to reject it?
Accepting a ceasefire would be beneficial in the eyes of the Russians, as it has been more than three years since the conflict began. Russian society is becoming more critical and is experiencing economic and military weariness. Additionally, the conflict has set back the global integration that Russia had been experiencing in recent decades. So, there are plenty of reasons to desire that ceasefire, but they will try to obtain more concessions before a truce is reached.
In terms of why he wouldn’t want it, at least not at this moment, Putin will continue to put central issues and conditions on the table such as Ukraine never being able to be part of NATO, as that would mean European military units literally on the Russian border and not losing the territories conquered so far, under the argument that they are regions that decided to join Russia and that many Russians live there. Negotiations on those two issues seem to be ruled out.
2. Zelensky seems to be relegated to a spectator while the United States and Russia negotiate peace in Ukraine and the distribution of Ukrainian lands and assets. What is your interpretation of this issue?
There are several readings there. One is precisely that Zelensky is very politically weakened, but we can also see that the European Union is also very weakened. Let’s not forget that those who have been supporting Ukraine are the United States and the European Union, and after that meeting a few weeks ago at the White House, in which they humiliated Zelensky and practically ran him off, they finally led the Ukrainian president to give in to the American vision to achieve a ceasefire and lasting peace.
The current situation and the events of the past weeks show that the United States, with Trump, has a dominant position in terms of how the ceasefire and peace negotiations will be conducted, relegating both Zelensky and the European Union to a secondary role. Europe has not had or has not shown the strength or the cards to handle the conflict alone, and Zelensky is succumbing to the power and vision of Trump.
3. If a comprehensive, complete ceasefire were to be achieved in Ukraine, how feasible is it for it to be maintained and lead to lasting peace in Ukraine?
Normally, in these high-intensity conflicts, what happens is that prior to any moment in which the ceasefire process is about to begin, there are intense exchanges of military activity. There is a vision of a final push or of gaining something more before the truce, in order to negotiate from a more consolidated position of power. So it is very likely that we will see something like this before a more complete ceasefire.
Later, both parties will evaluate whether what they have negotiated or what is being offered to them is a favorable alternative to their interests and to issues they perceive as elements of national security. If they give the green light to a truce, the first days are the most complex, as any excuse could be used under the pretext that one of the two parties violated the truce. It would also be a stage of great tension as negotiations continue for an extension of the ceasefire or a more comprehensive peace plan. It really depends and will depend on both parties to achieve a ceasefire and, eventually, a peace treaty.
4. The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump helped negotiate, appears to have come to an end. Will it have an impact on a possible ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine?
These are very different situations, on different continents. In the case of Israel, they are not fighting against a state, but against terrorists. Unfortunately, the bombings against civilians and civilian deaths are collateral damage in that conflict, which actually has many collateral repercussions.
However, what happens in Gaza should not have repercussions on the negotiations towards a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. These are two different processes in different places, with very different situations and variables. It is important to note that both Biden and Trump have largely neutralized, so to speak, the rest of the Middle East from directly intervening in the conflict.
Indeed, Iran and other actors have intervened to some extent, but the region could have been a powder keg about to explode and become a regional or global conflict, something that has not happened. And I believe that if a ceasefire is achieved between Russia and Ukraine, unfortunately Gaza will be put on the back burner.