How the Trump-Putin talks affected Ukraine's red lines
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.
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.
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.
Read more about what happened during the Putin-Trump negotiations and what lies ahead with the new idea of a "partial truce," which Moscow and Washington have interpreted differently, in the latest analysis by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor – Trump loses round one: behind the US-Russia talks and the changes they bring for Ukraine.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Another stage that Putin and Trump have "agreed to negotiate," and which could very well become a topic of discussion in Saudi Arabia, is a truce in the Black Sea.
But regardless of the outcome of this process, the question remains: what should be done about a full ceasefire? After all, Putin's conditions for further political negotiations are unacceptable for Ukraine.
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.
Ukraine maintains that under no circumstances will it ever recognise Russia’s annexation of its territories.
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.
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.
This means that Ukraine must maintain not only its independence but also its sovereignty and must not accept territorial concessions.