Russia Is Good With a Ceasefire in Ukraine, but There Are Nuances

From Nezavisimaya gazeta, March 14, 2025, p. 6. Condensed text:

The Kremlin is not refusing to conduct a dialogue with [US President] Donald Trump, but it does prefer to set its own conditions. This follows from a statement made by Russian officials on March 13, when US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff flew to Moscow. Judging by these statements, the Kremlin reacted coolly to the US-Ukrainian proposal for a 30-day ceasefire. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia agrees with the proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine, as long as it leads to a lasting peace and takes account of several nuances.

Back on March 12, presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said in comments about US-Ukrainian talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia [see the first feature, above] that more detailed information is needed to assess them. This information is apparently what was supposed to be provided by Witkoff, who has already had one successful mission to Moscow – the prisoner exchange in February, when the American Marc Fogel was exchanged for the Russian Aleksandr Vinnik. The exchange was followed by US-Russian talks in Riyadh [see Vol. 77, No. 8, pp. 3‑7], raising hopes that the bloodshed between Moscow and Kiev would end in the foreseeable future.

Witkoff’s visit was preceded by two perhaps unrelated events. Russia has restored control over Kursk Province, and, following the talks in Jeddah, the Ukrainian authorities announced their willingness to declare a 30-day ceasefire with the possibility of an extension if Russia takes a similar step. Trump’s team, and Trump himself, presented the ceasefire agreement not just as their own success, but also as a starting point for dialogue with the Kremlin.

Apparently, much of what the Russian, American and Ukrainian participants in the negotiation process have agreed on or are counting on remains behind the scenes. The details given to the press about the Jeddah agreement give rise to many questions. When will the ceasefire be declared? Who will monitor it? Will it be someone’s (but whose?) monitoring mission, which was the case in the Donetsk Basin after the Minsk [ceasefire] agreements [see Vol. 66, No. 37‑38, pp. 3‑6, and Vol. 67, No. 8, pp. 3‑7 – Trans.]? Or armed peacekeepers? If it’s the latter, then which countries’ troops will make up the peacekeeping contingent, and what will the contingent’s powers be? British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are assembling what they call a “coalition of the willing” prepared to send their troops to Ukraine [see Vol. 77, No. 9-10, pp. 7‑9]. According to the British government’s press service, talks have begun with a total of 37 countries. Participants in the Jeddah meeting, however, did not mention this coalition in conversations with journalists.

Finally, if there is a ceasefire, then along what lines? The current military contact line, or a different one? Trump’s team did not provide answers to these obvious questions.

And the question that has so greatly occupied Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky – that of security guarantees for his country if the lasting peace that could result from the ceasefire is violated by Russia – was not clarified, at least not for the press. For now, there is only the notorious US-Ukrainian agreement on mineral resources. It has yet to be signed, and not one single government agency has even published its text. So it’s not clear if it even mentions rare earth metals. Readers are reminded that this is where it all started. In February, Trump said that he wanted the equivalent of $500 billion in Ukraine’s rare earth metals in exchange for military aid [see Vol. 77, No. 7, pp. 3‑7]. This was a stark reminder to many observers of events during his first term. In September 2017, Trump signed an agreement to mine rare earth metals with Afghanistan. The same argument was made then as is being made now with Ukraine. However, that deal did not save [former Afghan president] Ashraf Ghani from a military defeat and loss of power four years later.

After the meeting in Jeddah, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, contrary to his previous statements, that the US does not consider the natural resources agreement to be a security guarantee for Ukraine. But what is considered a security guarantee? What kind of offer will the White House make the Kremlin? The press was not told anything about this.

However, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov told the Rossia 1 television channel about his conversation with a participant in the Jeddah meeting – US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. The US official was told that the Kremlin was seeking a long-term peace, not a short-term ceasefire. “A 30-day ceasefire. Well, what does that give us? Nothing. It only gives Ukrainians the chance to regroup, gain strength and continue doing the same thing in the future,” he said.

On the evening on March 13, [Russian President] Vladimir Putin said that he agrees with the proposal to end hostilities, but it should lead to long-term peace. “The idea itself is correct, and we certainly support it, but there are issues that require painstaking research,” he said, adding that several nuances need to be taken into account. For example, the situation in Kursk Province is completely under Russian control, and the Ukrainian grouping is blocked there. “Should we let them out of there after they committed a multitude of crimes against civilians?” he asked. “How will these 30 days be used? So that Ukraine can continue with forced mobilization? So that weapons can be delivered there? How will questions of monitoring and verification be handled?” . . .