The two-and-a-half-hour direct phone contact between the presidents of the United States and Russia on March 18 captivated the world’s attention, not only for its duration but also for the outcomes, which will have a direct impact on the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict.
According to European news outlets, the European Union (EU) leaders were anticipating the conversation between the Russian and U.S. presidents with apprehension, as they were concerned about its potential detrimental effects on European security. In the years to come, the Baltic states, Finland, and Poland are concerned about the potential for a Russian military offensive and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe.
Zelenskyy and the EU leaders were taken aback by Moscow’s unexpected agreement to a 30-day ceasefire. President Vladimir Putin’s statement, “We agree, but there are nuances,” reminiscent of his previous discussions with Donald Trump, sparked a hysteric response.
The Ukrainian government maintained an intense dislike for the “nuances” of the ceasefire, including the requirement to cease Western arms shipments and Ukraine’s ‘forced mobilization’ of its citizens. Zelenskyy’s forces would be unable to use the ceasefire as an opportunity to regroup, procure new Western weapons, and recruit additional soldiers for renewed combat as a result of these restrictions.
Moscow and Washington were also in the process of negotiating elements of a future peace agreement, such as Ukraine’s NATO membership status, territorial concessions, peacekeeping forces in the conflict zone, and the “denazification and demilitarization” of Kyiv’s leadership, while ceasefire conditions were being discussed.
Other significant subjects included the fate of Russia’s frozen foreign currency reserves, Western sanctions against Russia, and the official recognition of Crimea and newly annexed regions as part of Russia.
The official statements from the Kremlin and the White House offered an overview of the key points and agreements, although the complete details of the March 18 call are still unknown. The Ukrainian crisis and the 30-day ceasefire were, as expected, the main topics of discussion.
Moscow underscored the necessity of effective surveillance of the ceasefire, the cessation of Ukraine’s forced mobilization, and the complete cessation of Western arms and intelligence support for Kyiv. Ukrainian forces’ (as per Russia—terrorist) acts against civilians in Russia’s Kursk region and their repeated violations of previous agreements were also cited by the Kremlin as evidence of Kyiv’s unreliability.
Russia pledged to provide humane treatment to the encircled Ukrainian soldiers, in accordance with its laws and international standards. A prisoner exchange (175 for 175) is scheduled for March 19, during which 23 severely wounded Ukrainian soldiers were to be transferred as a gesture of goodwill.
Additionally, the Kremlin disclosed agreements regarding numerous issues. The presidents of the United States and Russia reaffirmed their dedication to maintaining communication and resolving the Ukrainian conflict. Expert committees would be established by the United States and Russia to facilitate negotiations regarding Ukraine. Moscow accepted Washington’s proposal for a mutual 30-day cessation of strikes on energy infrastructure. Discussions regarding the preservation of maritime security in the Black Sea would start.
Given their shared responsibility for global stability, both superpowers expressed their support for normalizing relations. Additionally, they deliberated on potential areas for collaboration, including the Red Sea region, the Middle East, and other regions.
Furthermore, Donald Trump expressed his support for Vladimir Putin’s proposal to organize hockey games between NHL and KHL players.
The White House provided a more ambiguous summary. The necessity of an armistice and peace in Ukraine was the subject of discussion between the presidents of the United States and Russia. The war should not have been initiated and should have been resolved through peaceful means long ago. The initiation of technical ceasefire discussions regarding the Black Sea and the cessation of attacks on energy infrastructure would serve as the foundation for progress toward peace. The potential for cooperation in the Middle East was addressed. The necessity of limiting the proliferation of strategic weapons was underscored. There is substantial potential in the relationship between the United States and Russia.
Initially, the White House planned to hold a press briefing featuring President Trump after the interaction, but instead, they opted for a written statement. Washington was likely compelled to postpone boastful declarations and instead issue a more cautious statement due to the intricacies of Russia’s ceasefire conditions, particularly Kyiv’s requirement to discontinue mobilization and Europe’s role in halting arms supplies.
Nevertheless, Trump subsequently characterized the call as “very good and productive” on social media, asserting that both parties would quickly work toward a full ceasefire and, ultimately, an end to this terrible conflict.
The reactions of the Western media were erratic. The Guardian saw no breakthrough, citing fundamental disagreements, while the British network Sky News viewed the call as a diplomatic win for both parties. Bloomberg contended that Russia hindered negotiations by failing to fulfill Trump’s assurance of an imminent ceasefire during the call.
The Ukraine issue was merely one component of the more extensive relationship between the United States and Russia. According to ABC News, Putin presented Trump with sufficient information to strengthen his reputation as a peacemaker, without requiring him to make any substantial concessions. The New York Times found the results to be disappointing, as neither party’s press releases suggested a rapid ceasefire. The Washington Post observed that Kyiv would need to approve any agreements. The Zelenskyy government remains steadfast in its demands, although progress has been made toward a peace agreement, including Ukraine’s exclusion from NATO and territorial concessions.
Sibiha, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, detailed three critical prerequisites. Ukraine will never acknowledge occupied territories. NATO membership is still a possibility, as no country has the authority to veto Ukraine’s decision to join alliances. Additionally, there are no limitations on Ukraine’s military strength or defense capabilities.
Furthermore, he maintained that “Russia must be held accountable,” demonstrating a complete lack of connection to reality.
The director of Zelenskyy’s office, Yermak, and the head of Ukraine’s parliamentary foreign policy committee, Merezhko, both reiterated these “red lines.”
Like the European motor mouth leaders, the Ukrainian government is also not acknowledged by the two superpowers.
Some members of Ukraine’s parliament are even of the opinion that they can negotiate not only to retain Ukrainian-controlled areas in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, but also to reclaim the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Consequently, Kyiv continues to maintain its belief that it retains leverage and refuses to recognize the strategic agreements between Moscow and Washington.
On the day of the U.S.-Russia call, Ukrainian militants attempted to invade Russia’s Belgorod region with military equipment, providing additional evidence of Kyiv’s resistance to peace.
Therefore, it will be necessary for Trump to once more compel Zelenskyy to negotiate a peace agreement.