Trump loses round one: behind the US-Russia talks and the changes they bring for Ukraine
The phone calls between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on 18 March were announced as a turning point in the Russia-Ukraine war. But the high expectations created by the US were not met.
The US president certainly didn’t win this round. On the contrary, Trump demonstrated to the world that he was unable to impose on Putin even the decisions he had been confident of. That said, it would also be premature to call the US negotiations a complete failure. While Trump did not achieve any gains regarding Ukraine, he did manage to push his Russian counterpart into a difficult position with regard to Iran.
Russia did not emerge as the winner in these negotiations either.
Putin’s key objective – securing international recognition for Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territories – has not yet been achieved, despite what leaks to the American media might suggest.
More importantly, even the limited agreements reached between Trump and Putin are being interpreted very differently by the two sides.
For Ukraine, there are some limited positives.
While there has not been a catastrophe on the American front, other international partners recognise that this remains a possibility and are stepping up their support for Ukraine as a result.
In recent days, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has received backing from Finnish President Alexander Stubb. Eighty years ago, Finland agreed to a deal with Russia that was similar to what Putin is now proposing for Ukraine. This historical precedent holds particular significance. Stubb has taken it upon himself to convince the world that repeating Finland’s past compromise would be a grave error that must be avoided.
Talks without agreement
The phone conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was the most anticipated diplomatic event of the week as far as the Russia-Ukraine war was concerned. It was preceded by eight-hour negotiations between top US and Ukrainian officials in Jeddah, at which the Ukrainian delegation agreed to an immediate ceasefire even before security guarantees were settled.
Following the Jeddah talks, responsibility for enforcing the ceasefire was placed on Russia. Washington publicly agreed that if Putin rejected the unconditional truce demanded by Trump, Russia would be held responsible for the failure of the peace negotiations. However, this strategy did not work. Putin rejected an immediate ceasefire, instead setting conditions for Russia to take such a step.
If the Kremlin had hoped that Trump would be willing to shift his red lines and make concessions in dialogue with Russia, that assumption turned out to be correct.
While the setback in the talks with Zelenskyy triggered an immediate response from the US, there was no such reaction following the dialogue with Russia. The US president agreed to continue discussions despite the initial setback.
For now, the US is not acknowledging any problems. Trump described his conversation with Putin as "good and productive", while Special Envoy Steve Witkoff called it "epic". However, there is every indication that the US president is aware he did not win this round. He did not hold a press briefing after the call, contrary to the expectations of US media outlets at the White House.
A clear sign of the talks’ failure is that the readouts of the call released by the White House and the Kremlin are radically different.
Moreover, the only preliminary agreement made between Trump and Putin – on the partial suspension of airstrikes – was interpreted entirely differently by Washington and Moscow.
Energy: what did Putin promise Trump?
The Kremlin's press release states that having rejected an immediate and complete cessation of hostilities, Putin proposed an alternative: a "mutual agreement to refrain from strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days".
The White House, however, interpreted this very differently.
In the official statement from Trump's spokesperson, the agreement was framed as: "The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire."
Trump echoed this in a post on Truth Social in which he mentioned "an immediate Ceasefire on all Energy and Infrastructure".
The difference is significant.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is now reiterating the US interpretation and accusing Putin of failing to keep his promise. Russian drones continue to attack Ukrainian civilian infrastructure every night.
But it appears that Trump's team is once again ready to make concessions.
In an interview with Bloomberg on Wednesday, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff adjusted the American position, acknowledging that Putin only promised to halt strikes on energy facilities – nothing more. Witkoff even justified the Russian attacks that occurred on the first night after the talks.
But Zelenskyy is not backing down.
The debate will continue over the weekend at a Ukraine-US meeting in Saudi Arabia, where military and energy experts will negotiate monitoring mechanisms for the partial ceasefire.
Nevertheless, Trump's public objective remains a full ceasefire along the front line between Ukrainian and Russian forces. "I actually think in a couple of weeks we're going to get to it," Steve Witkoff said on Wednesday.
But Putin’s conditions for that to happen are unacceptable to Ukraine.
Putin’s ultimatum: the details
The Kremlin’s statement following the Trump-Putin talks emphasised that any further steps toward peace must be preceded by a complete halt in foreign military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv. Notably, the Kremlin referred to "foreign aid" in general, not just US support.
Zelenskyy has rejected this demand outright, and Ukraine’s European partners have also dismissed it. The White House, for its part, has reaffirmed its commitment to continuing to supply military aid to Ukraine.
However, Putin’s true priority lies elsewhere, and the Kremlin is not hiding it.
Moscow seeks Western recognition of Russia’s control over the occupied Ukrainian territories as part of a peace agreement.
Negotiations on this issue are reportedly already underway between Russia and Washington.
Putin outlined this demand in a meeting with Russian business leaders which took place just before his call with Trump. The conversation was then leaked to Kremlin-affiliated journalist Andrei Kolesnikov from the media outlet Kommersant.
"Russia will not give up what it has gained. [The US] must recognise Crimea, Sevastopol and the four well-known territories – Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia – as part of Russia," Kolesnikov quoted Kremlin officials as saying.
In addition, Putin reportedly offered Trump a deal: if he agrees to this recognition, Russia will not lay claim to Odesa and other Ukrainian territories. However, the Russian leader is said to have warned that if Trump delays his response, Moscow could go even further.
This aligns with recent leaks in US media that also unexpectedly mentioned Odesa and suggested that Trump might be considering recognising Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
So far, however, the US administration has made no public statements on the matter.
A "Finnish scenario" for Ukraine?
In response to a question from European Pravda, President Zelenskyy acknowledged that territorial issues will need to be discussed in future peace talks.
"This will be one of the sensitive and difficult topics in the upcoming negotiations… [If a ceasefire is agreed upon], other issues will follow, and I am sure territorial matters will be among them," the Ukrainian president said.
Ukraine maintains that under no circumstances will it ever recognise Russia’s annexation of its territories. But what will Kyiv do if Washington agrees to such recognition as part of a peace deal?
That question remains unanswered.
Ukraine can, however, be confident of support from Europe.
On the day of the Trump-Putin talks, Zelenskyy was in Finland.
This coincidence is particularly significant, since 85 years ago Finland faced a situation similar to Ukraine’s today.
In late 1939, the Soviet Union launched an unprovoked war against Finland. Despite demonstrating extraordinary heroism in what became known as the Winter War, Finland's small army could not hold out indefinitely against the Soviet onslaught. In March 1940, Helsinki was forced to sign a peace treaty ceding 10% of its territory to the USSR. In 1944, towards the end of World War II, this loss was internationally recognised.
The world accepted the Soviet annexation.
Today, some suggest that Finland could serve as a model for Ukraine, arguing that
while Finland did have to make territorial concessions, it is now a prosperous European country. Could such a trade-off be historically justified?
Finland itself rejects this notion outright.
During a press conference with Zelenskyy, Finnish President Alexander Stubb took an unusually firm stance, stating that Ukraine must avoid the kind of "peace" that was imposed on Finland in 1944.
"The foundation of statehood rests on three pillars – independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. In 1944, Finland lost two of these under Stalin’s peace deal. We preserved independence, but we lost sovereignty in foreign policy decision-making and we lost 10% of our territory," Stubb explained.
He vowed to promote this message internationally.
Red lines in the great game
It should be understood that for Trump, the end of the war in Ukraine is part of a larger game, something the White House does not deny. "Relations with Russia are critically important for us," Steve Witkoff acknowledged on Wednesday, noting Russia’s influence on Iran and China.
This was also mentioned in Tuesday’s phone call between Trump and Putin, and here the US achieved a small success. The official statement from the White House includes a phrase stating that Trump, Putin and Moscow have agreed to "stop the spread of strategic weapons" and "share the view that Iran should never reach the point where it can destroy Israel".
It is unlikely that Tehran was happy to learn that their ally Putin has promised to act with the US against them.
Overall, Ukraine is losing out by being a cog in the great game.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Zelenskyy did not rule out further disagreements with the US. "It is very dangerous for Ukraine if the US is not our partner and turns its back on us; I would not want to talk about this," he stated.
With no real influence over the US, Ukraine can only continue to maintain its position.
Zelenskyy has publicly outlined his vision of the red lines for peace talks, which is largely based on advice from the Finnish leader.
This means that Ukraine must maintain not only its independence but also its sovereignty and must not accept territorial concessions.
As the president explained, this also means that in future negotiations, Ukraine will not make compromises with regard to its membership of international organisations, such as the EU, or security alliances (Finland after 1944 was de facto limited in this right), nor will it agree to any restrictions on the size of its army.
"These are absolute things. And the territories that are temporarily occupied will never become Russian," Zelenskyy added.
Recognition of Ukraine's territorial integrity by other countries is not on this list of red lines. Ultimately, Kyiv objectively has no influence over this.
Sergiy Sydorenko,
Editor, European Pravda