Ukraine should avail of U.S. dissatisfaction with the outcome of Trump-Putin talk

Presidents Donald Trump of the United States of America and Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation held a conversation over the phone on Tuesday, March 18, which lasted approximately an hour and a half.

President Donald Trump entered his call with Russian leader Vladimir Putin with high hopes, following days of White House optimism that a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine was within reach, but the outcome appeared to fall short of what the U.S. had sought.

While both the U.S. and Russia issued statements underscoring a shared interest in de-escalation, the  Kremlin's readout of the call between Trump and Putin was more reserved compared to the White House statement, confirming a fully agreed-upon ceasefire framework has yet to emerge. In particular, the White House’s statement makes no reference to the “need to stop forced mobilization in Ukraine and rearmament of the Armed Forces of Ukraine”.

What’s the outcomes?

The outcomes can be broadly divided into two blocks. The first one refers to what “the parties agreed upon” (referring to the messages both sides -- – the Kremlin and the White House – put down in their respective statements), and the second one includes “Putin’s wishes” (reflected in the Kremlin’s statement only).

So, what did Trump and Putin say about Ukraine:

The Kremlin’s version:

The sides discussed the Ukraine situation, there was a “frank exchange of views”.

A prisoner exchange at the rate of 175 for 175 is scheduled to take place on March 19.

Russia will hand over 23 seriously wounded Ukrainian soldiers as a “gesture of goodwill”.

Putin said that in the event of a ceasefire, Ukraine should discontinue mobilization for war and rearmament of its armed forces for the duration of ceasefire.

The Kremlin insists on the complete cessation of foreign military assistance and the provision of intelligence support to Kyiv as a key condition for moving forward.

Putin supported Trump's initiative on a reciprocal suspension of attacks on energy infrastructure for 30 days and "gave the appropriate order to his military."

As part of the ceasefire discussion, Putin emphasized the need for a mechanism to monitor ceasefire enforcement.

The Kremlin said that Putin wants, "in principle", to end the war peacefully.

The Russian Federation and the United States will create working groups to explore further steps towards a ceasefire and ultimately a peace agreement, which should be "sustainable and long-lasing" and settle the "root causes of the crisis."

Putin agreed to negotiate a "maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea”.

The Kremlin has traditionally accused Ukraine of "barbaric crimes" and of "sabotaging and violating agreements reached”.

The White House’s version:

Peace and ceasefire: Trump and Putin agreed that the war in Ukraine should end up in a long-lasting peace.

The first step towards peace: the two leaders agreed on the need for an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as to start negotiating a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea.

International negotiations: the United States and the Russian Federation will immediately commence a dialogue on Ukraine war settlement on international platforms, in particular in the Middle East.

It is not difficult to notice that the White House’s statement lacks much of what is contained in the Kremlin’s statement. In particular, there is no reference made of the demand for “Ukraine to discontinue the mobilization and rearmament of its Armed Forces”. Furthermore, the While House’s statement conspicuously omits any mention of the Kremlin’s demand regarding the complete cessation of foreign military assistance and the provision of intelligence support to Kyiv as a move necessary to prevent the situation from escalating. What can this suggest? Obviously enough, these “wishes” of Putin remained unanswered. The Russians voiced them simply to play for time. This was to be predicted. "Working groups" can likewise bog down in endless discussions about what the aggressor has no intention to agree to. However, we need to be polite and simply remind that what Ukraine cannot concede is also unacceptable to the US and Donald Trump. And, indeed, keeping allies informed and not fueling the enemy’s illusions.

Ukrinfom requested experts to share their immediate impressions from the Trump-Putin conversation?

"It was a dialogue between two people who are talking about different things"

Diplomat Vadym Tryukhan expressed his thoughts in three theses.

Thesis number one. Putin has obviously outplayed Trump.

"What Trump was counting on turned out to be unacceptable for the Kremlin. At the same time, in order not to admit the failure of the first stage of negotiations, Trump presented the agreements reached as benefitting both sides. But in fact, the benefit here is one-sided - and it is on the side of Moscow," the diplomat says.

First, Putin has totally rejected a complete ceasefire. A potential pause in attacks on energy infrastructure is beneficial to the Kremlin, as it has already sensed the threat. Ukraine is launching increasingly sophisticated attacks on oil refineries and gas infrastructure, in particular, by successfully using its Long Neptune missile upgrade and testing long-range drones capable of ranges of up to 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles).

“Moscow is well aware that more such attacks will follow, and therefore they are trying to protect themselves. This is also important for internal stability - Russian society is increasingly concerned that the war immediately affects their territory,” Tryukhan added.

Second is the situation in the Black Sea. This is not about the safety of maritime navigation, but, again, the Kremlin’s willingness to secure its naval fleet and the Kerch Strait from Ukrainian Neptune and naval drone attacks.

"As a matter of fact, the proposed ceasefire deal creates tactical advantages for the Russians," the expert believes.

Thirdly, with no ceasefire on land, Russia will continue offensive operations to seize more Ukrainian territory.

"Russia is ramping up its offensive activity in the Kharkiv region, preparing for a breakthrough in the Sumy region, continuing assaults in the Donbas and the South. The Kremlin, obviously enough, is seeking to seize as much territory as possible in anticipation of the start of potential "peace talks" in order to then put forward its conditions, referring to the situation "on the ground"," comments Vadym Tryukhan.

So, in his opinion: "Russia, unlike Washington, clearly outlined its advantages right away. Ukraine should evaluate such approaches very carefully in order to prevent a situation where the ceasefire will work exclusively in the interests of the Kremlin."

Thesis number two. The statement that the US and Russia are immediately starting negotiations on Ukraine crisis settlement in the Middle East raises serious concerns.

“Shuttle diplomacy is good, but there are currently no signs of the US and European partners being involved in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. All that means is for Ukraine to see who really remains on its side. The UK and most EU member states remain to be reliable partners. At the same time, the first comments on the Trump-Putin phone call clearly reveal that neither Europeans nor British are involved in this process. This is an alarming signal,” Vadym Tryukhan warns.

Another aspect of concern is the lack of full-fledged negotiations being held between Ukraine and Russia with the involvement of international mediators: “This is a victory for Putin, who continues to impose his scenario. Ukraine would be advised to closely monitor the situation so as not to find itself faced with the fact of agreements having been reached without it at the table.”

Thesis number three. It is clear from everything that Putin has not moved a single step away from his position. He continues to insist on the so-called “settlement of root causes of the crisis,” but in actual fact is pushing forward his aggressive scenario regarding Ukraine. This involves rolling back NATO borders to 1997, the so-called “denazification” and “demilitarization” of Ukraine— the demands the Kremlin has been making since the very inception of its full-scale invasion. At the same time, the White House has been silent about this in its comments. Its representatives have not made any statements regarding these unacceptable conditions for Ukraine.

Despite all the risks, there are two positive aspects to this.

The first is a test for the Kremlin. Putin has apparently already given the order not to attack Ukraine’s energy infrastructure (President Zelensky stated that Ukraine supports this, - ed.). If this order is really enforced, it could give Kyiv a certain tactical advantage. But if the strikes resume tomorrow or the day after tomorrow (they have not stopped yet, - ed.), this will signify an apparent failure of peacekeeping efforts.

The second positive aspect is a new prisoner exchange, confirmed by President Zelensky. While not an “all-for-all” exchange, it is still a tangible result. Every life saved is definitely a victory, although Ukraine continues to insist on larger-scale exchanges.

To sum it up... It seems that the conversation between Trump and Putin was a dialogue between two people negotiating about different things. Putin tried to promote his own messages, while Trump focused on what concerns him most - the issue of Israel, the economy, etc.

"The outcome of this conversation in no way affected the interests of Ukraine, making the US role as a mediator highly controversial”, the expert argues.

In this situation, the pressure on Ukraine will increase. This means that Kyiv must act immediately:

Step up Domestic production of armaments;

Double up efforts to launch new defense industrial collaborations with European partners;

Bolster cooperation with the "coalition of the willing" – the countries standing with Ukraine and willing to fill in the gaps in US aid with own produced weaponry.

"We cannot rule out a scenario in which the US will again freeze military aid, including intelligence support. This is a very realistic threat that Ukraine must be prepared for," Vadym Tryukhan emphasized.

“Trump again has two options facing him: either to continue negotiations or to step up pressure on Russia, recognizing its unwillingness to make concessions”

Ihor Reiterovych, director of political and legal programs at the Ukrainian Center for Social Development, began his comment with a phrase that he believes best describes the outcome of the negotiations between Trum and Putin, saying “The mountain gave birth to a mouse.”

“Expectations were completely different, and the reality turned out to be the one Ukraine has repeatedly warned about. A cessation of hostilities on the ground still remains unattainable for now, and Putin’s “wishes” will definitely not be fulfilled — neither by Ukraine nor, probably, by the United States, since this would mean outright humiliation,” the expert believes.

It is highly notable, Reiterovych continues to note, how Russia played out the situation in terms of information: it was the first to publish an extensive and detailed press release, while Trump did not even show up to talk to the media. Although he promised to… Washington apparently was expecting a different result.

A separate disturbing aspect concerns the creation of "working groups" between the US and Russia, which are supposed to deal with a settlement for the Ukraine war. This looks quite strange: without Ukraine at the table, such discussions are meaningless.

"As for the difference in the statements of the US and Russian parties, it demonstrates that Trump and his team had rather idealistic ideas about Putin's readiness to end the war. In reality, the Kremlin is acting according to its own script, playing for time and putting forward new narratives, because it is not satisfied with the format proposed by the United States. Trump is currently facing two options: either continue negotiations, which will most likely happen, or increase pressure on Russia, recognizing its unwillingness to make concessions. In any case, this is only the beginning - there are many more rounds of diplomatic maneuvers ahead," the political analyst says.

What should we do together with our European partners? Clearly articulate our position: "We offered a realistic scenario for a settlement, and events only prove our rightness".

Asked whether Kyiv should expect any immediate consequences for Moscow from Washington, Mr Reiterovych said: they are unlikely to follow any time soon.

"So far, Washington is busy assembling working groups, holding more discussions, and aligning positions. Trump will definitely come out with his remarks about the negotiations, after which official statements will follow, including from our side. That is, the process will continue for some while. That said, however, it will be curious to see whether Russia will continue attacks on our energy infrastructure, and how the situation regarding its today's drone attacks will develop in terms of the targets hit and the US response that will follow."

Another question that arises is what we should do together with our European partners.

"Clearly articulate our position: we offered a realistic scenario for a settlement, and events only confirm our rightness. Russia is not ready for any kind of constructive dialogue, makes unacceptable demands and continues to play its habitual manipulations. The main thing now is to closely monitor Moscow's actions and pressure the need to respond from a position of strength. This applies to all our allies, including the United States. Basically, the situation is developing quite favorably for Ukraine, but intelligent diplomacy needs to be applied. Avoiding excessive euphoria, consistently and confidently communicate our message to the Americans: we warned, and now everyone can see the true picture. The next step is to look for new ways to put pressure on Russia together,” Mr Reiterovych said.

“The Kremlin has put forward its traditional “wishes,” but Washington did not accept them as a basis for negotiations”

This is Oleksandr Leonov, executive director at Penta Center for Applied Political Studies: “Did the expectations regarding this conversation come true? Obviously not. Moreover, it seems that the White House is not satisfied with the outcomes either. Donald Trump announced this talk as a turning point – one that should bring peace. However, Russia has actually agreed only to a limited infrastructure ceasefire.”

It is notable here that Trump canceled his press conference after the talk with Putin, while the White House confined itself to a press statement, obviously suggesting the outcome appeared to fall short of what the American side had sought.

“The key question is how much pressure the US is ready to put on Russia to achieve a true cessation of hostilities. The Kremlin’s current rhetoric is in clear conflict with the statement made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, saying that any peace negotiations must not begin until after a complete ceasefire is achieved, “ Mr Leonov reminds.

Another aspect of importance is that Russia is seeking to promote a narrative saying that the Ukrainian issue is a matter for negotiations only between Moscow and Washington, without Europe and Ukraine itself at the table. This is a long-standing dream of Putin, but it will unlikely come true.

“As an interesting note, while the Kremlin was talking about Ukraine, the American side mentioned Iran. This raises worries about Russia purportedly conducting behind-the-scenes negotiations on the Middle East without the knowledge of its partners, in particular Tehran. If so, this may cause discontent in Iran”.

Regarding the differences between the two versions of Tuesday’s call from the Kremlin and White House: “The Kremlin puts on the table its standard “wishes,” but the fact that they are not referred to in the White House’s official communiqué suggests that Washington simply did not accept them as a basis for negotiations.”

Conclusion notes: The expectations the White House pinned on Tuesday’s talk with Putin did not come true; Russia continues pushing for its demands, seeking maximum concessions possible. Ukraine is responding by defending its national interests, decisively yet diplomatically…

Myroslav Liskovych. Kyiv