Trump-Putin Won’t Cease The Fire

medium119218042The long-awaited conversation between Trump and Putin on March 18 confirmed what was already clear — Russia is not prepared to end its war. For Kremlin, talk of a ceasefire is merely a tactic to prolong aggression. Following their discussion, Putin refused to agree to a proposed 30-day truce, instead vaguely suggesting a mutual halt to strikes on energy infra. Just hours later, he brazenly violated his own words, launching another wave of Shahed drone attacks on central Kyiv.For Trump, the situation is fraught with difficulty. Pressuring Moscow would be an admission that his approach since assuming office two months ago has been flawed. Yet pushing Ukraine to make concessions would appear both unjust and strategically misguided. The most likely course of action for Washington will be to announce another round of negotiations, urging Russia to accept what Kyiv proposed over a week ago — a ceasefire with no preconditions.At the same time, Ukraine will find itself under increasing pressure from Washington. Trump, eager to gain leverage in talks with Putin, may attempt to push Kyiv into making even minor concessions to Moscow’s wholly unreasonable demands. Ukrainian analysts warn this process could drag on for as much as six months, with intense fighting continuing on the front lines. This phase’s duration will depend on whether Trump administration is willing to move beyond its current diplomatic manoeuvring and exert real pressure on Moscow to force an end to the conflict. That, however, remains an open question.The successful meeting in Saudi Arabia on March 11 between Ukrainian and US delegations surprised even the optimists. Following a heated exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy in Oval Office, bilateral relations had seemingly hit their lowest point in 30 years. Suspension of US military aid, intelligence sharing, and arms deliveries to Ukraine was widely viewed as an open betrayal of partnership commitments.Assessments of Ukrainian officials and experts differed about the real dependence of Ukrainian armed forces on American intelligence and weaponry. Some estimated that 90% of Ukrainian battlefield intelligence came from US, while others believed Ukraine could adapt swiftly. But all agreed a breakdown in relations with Washington was detrimental. Transitioning to Ukrainian or European substitutes for American arms and intelligence requires time, a resource currently among most crucial factors in the Russo-Ukrainian war.But Washington’s pressure tactics produced an unexpected result. Suspension of US support included maintenance of electronic warfare systems for Ukraine’s F-16 fighters, specifically AN/ALQ-131 electronic countermeasure pods. This created a significant risk for Ukrainian pilots, who rely on these jets to combat Russian aircraft and other battlefield threats. While this confirmed Trump’s assertion that Ukraine would struggle to last more than two weeks without US aid — importantly, it served as a cold wake-up call for Nato’s European allies.European policymakers and analysts were worried. Several European Nato members have contracted or are considering purchasing F-35 fighter jets. If US could all of a sudden suspend support for Ukraine’s F-16s, what was the guarantee it wouldn’t do the same for German or Polish F-35s under certain conditions? The same logic applied to European Patriot missile defence systems — if US could halt missile supplies or maintenance for Ukraine, why should European nations invest billions in American defence systems rather than develop their own defence industry?These concerns have intensified European efforts to consolidate defence industrial cooperation and build independent European military capabilities. US’s approach towards Ukraine has inadvertently accelerated Europe’s push for strategic autonomy.Despite this, the Jeddah meeting yielded unexpectedly positive results. First, Ukraine formally expressed readiness for a temporary 30-day ceasefire, contingent on reciprocal implementation by Russia. Second, US announced immediate resumption of intelligence-sharing and military assistance to Ukraine. Within hours of the meeting, Ukrainian officials confirmed that American arms and intelligence support were once again flowing into the country.Yet the central question remains: how can Putin be compelled to end the war against Ukraine? Various scenarios have been proposed, ranging from intensified sanctions and economic isolation to lifting restrictions in exchange for Russian cooperation. Given Russia’s worsening economic conditions, Putin might theoretically accept a ceasefire in return for sanctions relief. However, Putin’s decision-making is rarely driven by conventional economic or political logic.Moreover, what compromises might US consider to pressure Russia? Would this involve abandoning demands for Ukraine’s occupied territories? Could Russia insist on Ukraine’s ‘demilitarisation’ by capping its military size, something it seems to be doing with the latest Trump-Putin call? Might Russia push for restrictions on European military deployments in Ukraine, and could a multinational peacekeeping force — perhaps including Indian contingents — play a role in stabilising ceasefire zones?Another unresolved issue is the fate of the Russian Kursk region, a portion of which Ukraine has controlled since Aug 2024. Could Ukraine use this territorial leverage in negotiations, perhaps offering an exchange for parts of its own occupied regions? Or will Russia attempt to retake this entire area before the talks intensify, allowing Putin to claim Ukraine never held it? Even if Ukrainian troops have withdrawn from Sudzha (a Russian city Ukraine forces have controlled since Aug 2024), the Ukrainian Armed Forces still hold part of the Kursk region in an effort to prevent Russians from breaking through the border into Ukraine’s Sumy region.Trump seems to be on the path to a realisation that Ukrainians have known all along. That without real pressure on Putin and genuine security guarantees for Ukraine, this war cannot end.The writer is Director, New Geopolitics Research Network, Ukraine