From Republic.ru, March 19, 2025, https://republic.ru/posts/115430. Condensed text:

Editors’ Note. – The second telephone conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in which they discussed possible steps toward ending the Russia-Ukraine war has polarized the expert community and observers. . . .

Some commentators speak of a de facto failure of the ceasefire idea, calling it the Kremlin’s colonial tactic, which could lead to Ukraine’s capitulation. Others note that [Trump and Putin] certainly managed to get things moving from a dead stop, and although there are still “a lot of speculations and provocations” ahead, things are moving toward peace. At the same time, many agree that Moscow has been able to turn the discussion on the settlement of the conflict into a drawn-out process that must go through at least two more negotiation phases before it becomes clear whether success is achievable. Here is a collection of opinions on the matter from politicians, political analysts, military experts and journalists.

* * *

US President Donald Trump. – My phone conversation today with President Putin of Russia was a very good and productive one. We agreed to an immediate ceasefire on all energy and infrastructure, with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a complete ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible war between Russia and Ukraine. This war would have never started if I were president! Many elements of a contract for peace were discussed, including the fact that thousands of soldiers are being killed, and both President Putin and President Zelensky would like to see it end. That process is now in full force and effect, and we will, hopefully, for the sake of humanity, get the job done! . . .

Former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. – Just hours after telling Trump that Russia would agree to stop attacking energy infrastructure in Ukraine for 30 days, Putin attacked energy infrastructure in Ukraine, humiliating Trump. I hope the president and his team learn from this experience and develop new negotiating methods.

Russian Security Council deputy chair Dmitry Medvedev. – The phone call between Presidents Putin and Trump proved a well-known idea – there is only Russia and America in the dining room. On the menu: light appetizers – Brussels sprouts, British fish and chips, and Paris rooster. The main course is a Kiev-style cutlet. Enjoy your meal!

British military analyst Michael Clark. – . . . There’s an old saying in diplomatic circles: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” And believe me, Ukraine is on the menu.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. – I don’t want to insult anyone, but I don’t want us to be on the menu for Putin. We are not a salad or compote for this person, despite his appetite. And we can see what [his appetite] is like. That’s all. We are an independent state, and therefore [speaking] about us without us – Well, I think it’s wrong to negotiate like that, because there will be no result desirable to everyone.

What is behind (Putin’s demand that Ukraine stop its – Ed.) mobilization, (and that the West stop providing – Ed.) intelligence and weapons? The weakening of the Ukrainian Army.*** The issue is reducing the size of the Ukrainian Army, one way or another.

I think that serious [Western] partners will not agree to this. And they’ll do the right thing. They understand that this will weaken the Ukrainian side. Not only does Ukraine need to be supported now, but Ukraine needs to be supported after the end of the war.

What does Putin want? I would love for President Trump to both hear and see that. First of all, Putin wants to take several offensive actions: As I was told, (he would like – Ed.) to continue in the east in the Zaporozhye, Kharkov and Sumy operational areas. He will try to do that. For what purpose? In order to put maximum pressure on Ukraine.*** He (Putin – Ed.) wants to move forward and enter our territory as much as possible.*** In order to reach a ceasefire at some point with ultimatums to Ukraine.*** That’s why we need America’s strength here.

The two sides, (Ukraine and Russia – Ed.) with the mediation of the American side, may agree not to hit energy infrastructure. But it cannot be that Russia will attack our energy sector while we remain silent. We will respond. Our side will support this. . . .

In any case, a truce begins with an unconditional ceasefire.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. – The era of the peace dividend is long gone. The security architecture that we relied on can no longer be taken for granted. The age of spheres of influence and power competition for power is well and truly back.*** [Russia] has massively expanded its military-industrial production capacity***while preparing it[self] for future confrontation with European democracies. [And just as these threats increase, we see our oldest partner] the US move its focus to the Indo-Pacific.

Journalist Kirill Martynov. – The two versions of press releases issued by Washington and Moscow following the “historic phone call” are very different. The Trump administration presents the incident as a meaningful advance in the negotiation process, pointing to Putin’s readiness to abandon attacks on energy facilities as a first step toward a general ceasefire.

The Kremlin emphasizes its own conditions for a ceasefire, including the cessation of arms supplies and the curtailment of mobilization, which are unthinkable for Ukraine and the EU. These conditions could make sense if Russia symmetrically stopped its military-industrial complex and dissolved its invasion forces, and, as a unilateral gesture, opened up a discussion of “the Kiev regime that was denied sovereignty in Moscow,” that is, of the 2021 ultimatum that Putin has never repudiated.

It would be a great miracle if an agreement as fragile as a rejection of attacks on energy facilities could build traction in order to take the next steps. It is not clear who will determine what is considered an energy facility, and it is not even clear whether Trump correctly understood the essence of the “deal” he reached, since his version of events presupposes a rejection of attacks not only on energy facilities, but also on infrastructure in general.

Michael McFaul rightly notes that if you look for good news (the bar is very low), it doesn’t seem like Trump is ready to agree to Putin’s entire list of conditions, including disarmament and the transfer of territories. On the other hand, many people who were very tired expected this conversation to work a miracle: an ‘all for all’ exchange of prisoners (rather than 175 for 175+23 seriously injured) and an actual stop to shooting for a while. The bar is very high here: How and when will they jump over it?

An absolutely shameful tactic played by the Kremlin is linked to its attempt to present what is happening as a kind of colonial carve-up, where great powers discuss business, diplomacy and, in particular, hockey games over a cup of coffee, using the “disputed territory” as an pretext for two and a half hours of small talk. Meanwhile, the list of agreements reached fits into one minute.

Supreme Rada Deputy Aleksei Goncharenko. – Let’s summarize. Trump wanted to declare a 30-day total ceasefire, but Russia is not going along with it. It is important to recognize this. Furthermore, the fact that Trump’s idea did not work out could end up being bad for Russia itself. [Reports] about a big [prisoner] exchange and the cessation of attacks on infrastructure are very good news.

And here we can already recognize that Putin is afraid of Trump. Because [Putin] was forced to go along with some kind of deescalation, and he went along with it. To begin with, of course, he chose energy as the most profitable thing for himself. And now he will haggle over every next step and stall for time. But at the same time, he will consistently concede to Trump. At some point, this will lead to peace. The White House said in a statement that the next talks will begin immediately in the Middle East. So we will see a logical continuation of today’s conversation in the coming days.

Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachov. – The main impression is of a dialogue rather than two monologues. And not in the mode that they tried to impose on us – either accept our conditions or you are responsible for all the consequences. Russia did not fall for this, but America did not follow this senseless path either.*** All in all, we can say that diplomacy is back! . . .

Political analyst Tatyana Stanovaya. – The main actual result is Putin’s agreement to a 30-day partial truce – the cessation of strikes on energy infrastructure. At the same time, Putin did not directly reject the initial proposal for a complete truce, but put forward well-known conditions: Ukraine will not mobilize or rearm, and there will be a complete cessation of foreign assistance.

I note that this is not just about American assistance, which makes the prospect of a full-fledged truce extremely unlikely (unless, of course, Trump starts putting pressure on Europe and threatening it with sanctions if it doesn’t stop supplies – Moscow would like that). This was supplemented by the almost direct demand for Zelensky’s departure in the form of the talking point that the Kiev regime is incapable of negotiating.

The important point is that putting forward conditions for a truce does not make discussing such a truce more likely. For example, on the issue of ensuring the safety of navigation in the Black Sea, substantive negotiations are beginning within one of the working groups. This is not about a full-fledged truce. The creation of Russian-American expert groups is another important but expected outcome of the conversation.***

Finally, the third (and probably the most) important result is the already full legitimization of US cooperation with Russia on important international issues: The Middle East and the Red Sea are mentioned, as well as the already practical example of a joint vote in the UN on a resolution regarding the Ukraine conflict.

This, of course, is a great success for Putin, who has managed to remove bilateral relations from direct dependence on the Ukraine conflict. Plus, Russia’s further detoxification: Putin and Trump have agreed to organize hockey matches between Russian and American players playing in the NHL and KHL.”

Political analyst Mikhail Vinogradov. – What can be seen along the way (it’s too early to talk about the bottom line). Moscow is managing to solve its main task: containing Trump’s storm and onslaught, and Washington’s increasing dynamism. Slowing things down without saying “no” directly. Moscow’s strength lies in its ability to do so. It’s been working so far. And then, you see, when he doesn’t get clear results (but no direct refusal, either), Trump will switch to something more effective.

Moscow’s vulnerability lies in the fact that everyone is already a little bit tired. And if you look at the behavior of the markets, biased observers may think that it’s not just a little bit. . . .

Former Ukrainian deputy defense minister Anna Malyar. – Putin has achieved his goal: He has legalized himself in top-tier international politics and dragged the US into negotiations that were obviously unprofitable. Because for the US, dealing with such a counterpart is a drop in status and authority.

Now Putin is setting conditions. After all, in countries where populism thrives, politicians become hostages to their populist promises. So, instead of giving us enough weapons and air defense and putting political pressure on an international criminal, the US and the West will look for ways to save face at the cost of our victims and territories. . . .

Military expert Nikolai Mitrokhin. – As a result of Trump’s conversation with Putin, it became clear that Putin is not sure whether he should stop the war. Moreover, he hopes to take advantage of Trump’s pause in pressure to seize new territories from Ukraine, possibly using troops freed up from Kursk. Then we can expect an increase in “meat assaults” in the Pokrovsk and Toretsk operational areas. A couple of days ago, the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) were forced to “make a maneuver,” that is, to retreat to the north. Over the past two days, the UAF have been trying to throw off the expected Russian offensive by attacking the Belgorod [Province] border area with small forces.

At the same time, the repudiation of attacks on the energy sector is welcome: It was not beneficial to anyone and largely served Zelensky’s ambitions. A repudiation of war on the Black Sea is a political and military defeat for Zelensky. For more than six months, the UAF and [Ukrainian] Navy have failed to take advantage of Ukraine’s dominance in the western part of the sea to gain a foothold on islands and spits west of the Crimea. Moreover, as an indirect result of this confrontation, islands in the lower Dnepr were lost. As for me, the inability of the UAF to return the Kinburn [Peninsula] and the adjacent sea islands is Ukraine’s biggest loss of the last year of the war, after Pokrovsk. And the current agreements reinforce it. I’m not seriously looking at Sudzha; that was a bargaining chip.

Political analyst Ilya Grashchenkov. – There will be peace. I am glad that my predictions have come true that the Kremlin and the White House will find common ground and agree on a ceasefire. But that’s only half the story. There are still a lot of speculations and provocations ahead, but it is important that Trump and Putin have managed to come to an agreement. I’m sure there were no improvisations here. This is not the format of the skirmish with Zelensky [see Vol. 77, No. 9-10, pp. 3-6], but the result of rather lengthy negotiations on both sides. The Kremlin, of course, is very lucky to have Trump, and the fact that the Democratic Party is his main rival. So I am convinced that negotiations with the US will go well. The same cannot be said about the EU and probably China.***

Overall, strategically, the US and Russia want peace. However, the negotiations will be very difficult, because each side has too many requirements. Finding a balance and making concessions won’t be easy. Perhaps the Trump team will even come up with some unusual maneuver that will help expand the situation. Like a deal on rare earth [metals] and joint work with Russia to extract them, thus creating a political space through business interests. But we’ve definitely managed to get off the ground; there is progress toward peace, and that’s a very good thing. And since the US and Russia are the “party of peace” today, demonstrating these intentions is the right step.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, politician and public figure. – It appears that the concrete result of the talks is a ceasefire in Ukraine in a week. Beyond that, it’s up for interpretation. Even further beyond is the possibility of renewed fire.

But a start has been made. A sleazy peace is still peace. Better than pointless slaughter. Alas, the opportunity to win was missed due to Western indecision. A great war is now ahead. Preferably a cold one.

Political analyst Vladimir Pastukhov. – The results of the telephone conversation between Putin and Trump remained in the “expectations zone” – progress without a breakthrough. Moscow retains the strategic initiative in setting the negotiating agenda, but compromises on Putin’s part remain possible. Moscow is still more creative in finding approaches to the Trump administration (i.e., it knows how to smooth-talk it), and as a result, after each new round of negotiations, finds itself in a psychologically more advantageous position than in the previous round. Moscow, with Washington’s help, is setting the framework for the discussion, and Kiev is forced to adjust that framework to its own needs, with greater or lesser success at each subsequent step.

In order to preserve the chemistry of mutual understanding with Trump, Russia is sacrificing some tactical positions: officially (more precisely, in words), Ukraine was the one to propose suspending strikes on energy facilities, and not a complete ceasefire, that was adopted in the end. Putin is burdening his agreement to a truce with a multitude of conditions that are either completely unacceptable to Ukraine or extremely risky for it. Thus, the ball is back in Zelensky’s court, and he will face even more pressure from Trump.

At the same time, Russia and America are enthusiastically discussing the hunt for the “white whale,” a kind of super deal that includes de facto fully unblocking economic cooperation between the two countries and even putting it in drive, as well as some mutual concessions in overlapping areas of interest (such as keeping bases in Syria in exchange for refusing to supply modern weapons to Iran). Putin and Trump are exchanging gifts, like in the Middle Ages. As a gesture of goodwill, Trump gave Putin hockey. It won’t be long before we find out what Putin gave Trump.

Fyodor Lukyanov, chair of the Russian Foreign and Defense Policy Council. – As might be expected, the hype surrounding the call between Putin and Trump has remained at an artificial volume. Attempts to present the second conversation as fateful and decisive did not work; the process continues, and its temporal prospects are still unclear. This, however, does not detract from the significance of this step. Several preliminary conclusions can be drawn.

First, everything is going more according to the Russian scenario. Moscow did not welcome the idea of an immediate truce, stating the need to carefully develop its terms, essentially to prepare the outlines of a long-term solution. The truce did not happen.

Russia rejected this scheme very elegantly, I must say, supporting the proposal that Zelensky had put forward earlier – but then repudiated under pressure from Washington – to mutually stop strikes on energy infrastructure and [implement] security measures in the Black Sea. Whether or not this moratorium will take place remains to be seen. But even its implementation will not directly change the situation on the battlefield, where the initiative belongs to the Russian side. The Kremlin diverted the White House pressure generated by the talks in Jeddah and turned the discussion into a drawn-out process. Moscow believes that this is currently to its benefit.

Second, the condition for a truce/peace is the cessation of the militarization of Ukraine in the form of both supplies and the mobilization of its population. We can say that there has been a return to the original goal of the special military operation [in Ukraine] – demilitarization. The topic is included on the agenda, although it is not obvious it will arrive at the desired result. There is a conflict between the US (which has already shown that it can also stop aid) and Europe (which is only strengthening its commitment to military assistance for Kiev). Whatever happens next, the topic of military capabilities is coming to the forefront. Unlike the territorial issue, which, while discussed, remains in the shadows.

Also, as Russia has insisted from the very beginning, it seems the Ukraine issue is being discussed in the general context of relations. Hence the accompaniment about the great prospects for economic cooperation, which may be ritual but [is still] telling. Of particular note is the mention in the American version that the parties discussed the Middle East in detail, in particular the issue of Israel’s security.

Confirmation that this topic (apparently a wide range of issues from Iran-Israel to Syria and the Gulf monarchies) is a priority for Trump. Ukraine is not. For Russia, on the contrary, Ukraine is obviously ahead of everything else in the queue of priorities. There is a theoretical opportunity for alignment: Each side can exchange what is less important for what is most important to itself, which to the other is less important. Success is not guaranteed at all, but it is a relatively rational scheme.

The conversation did not bring good news to Kiev and Europe. Among other reasons, this is because they are being blatantly ignored. The two great powers are discussing a settlement, paying little attention to the others. We must go through at least two more negotiation phases before it becomes clear whether success is achievable or doomed to failure. In other words, whether the KHL-NHL match will take place or fall through.