Jamie Dettmer serves as the opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, “Plan A is: Get the shooting to stop,” highlighting the administration’s primary objective to secure a quick ceasefire. This aim is crucial before advancing to broader discussions concerning a settlement to permanently conclude the ongoing war in Ukraine.
However, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions suggest otherwise. He demonstrated his intentions by refusing to agree to a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire during his 90-minute phone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump. Shortly after their discussion, Russia initiated a drone assault targeting Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.
Putin offered minimal diplomatic concessions, stating he would refrain from attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for 30 days. This self-serving move appears designed to protect Russia’s energy system from potential strikes, especially as Ukraine recently enhanced the range of its Neptune subsonic cruise missiles from 200 kilometers to an impressive 1,000 kilometers.
In the broader context, it seems Trump and his diverse group of special envoys, family members, and allies are more inclined to align with Russia on geopolitical matters than to firmly press for more substantial action regarding Ukraine.
The Kremlin’s account of the call emphasized a potential Washington-Moscow reset, discussing topics ranging from economic cooperation to even ice hockey, while failing to provide any substantial peace framework for the Ukrainian situation.
With a genuine breakthrough appearing unlikely, Russia remains steadfast in its demands, insisting on an end to military aid and intelligence support to Kyiv. They are also advocating for addressing the “root causes” of the war, which, in Kremlin terminology, translates to dismantling democracy in Ukraine and obstructing its movement towards NATO and the EU.
Aligning with Putin
The Trump administration seems all too willing to accommodate Putin. The Russian leader is deliberately intertwining various stages of the Ukraine negotiations, manipulating the order of discussions either to ensure a final settlement is advantageous to Russia or to evade an outright ceasefire.
Over recent weeks, Putin and his top aides have clearly outlined their red lines for a peace agreement. These conditions threaten to unravel the very fabric of Ukraine, demanding guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO and enforcing geopolitical neutrality, thereby stripping the nation of its agency—along with severe restrictions on its military capabilities. Moscow also seeks international recognition of Crimea and the four eastern oblasts as part of the Russian Federation, flatly rejecting the presence of European troops to oversee any peace agreement.
In essence, Russia is delivering an unequivocal “no” to the security assurances Ukraine seeks to safeguard against what it perceives as imminent further aggression from Putin.
Instead of waiting for formal peace negotiations, the Kremlin is attempting to extract agreement on its red lines, effectively holding the ceasefire proposal hostage without outright rejecting it—a move that could provoke Trump’s ire. While Trump has threatened additional sanctions against Moscow should Putin not engage in a peace deal, for the moment, he appears to be permitting the Russian president to dictate the pace of discussions.
A Recognizable Strategy
Some observers contend that Putin is stalling, unable to make definitive decisions. However, it can also be viewed that he is simply revisiting a familiar strategy. Similar to his previous negotiations in Syria, he is entangling his interlocutors in a maze of conditions and “root causes,” aiming to wear them down until he secures his primary objectives or prolongs the talks indefinitely.
From the Kremlin’s perspective, negotiations are merely an extension of warfare, achieved through different means.
In this reshaped negotiation landscape, Putin is receiving considerable assistance from Team Trump.
Trump and special envoy Steven Witkoff have already begun discussing the settlement terms to facilitate a ceasefire deal, while Trump and Putin have conversed regarding “land,” “power plants,” and the division of certain assets prior to any “official” peace discussions.
Before meeting with Putin this week, Trump claimed on his Truth Social platform that “many elements of a Final Agreement have been agreed to.” This announcement was unexpected for Ukraine. Trump’s tentative agreement with Putin regarding land and Ukrainian assets pressures Kyiv into a dilemma: either accept the terms agreed upon by the two leaders or reject the pre-arranged deal.
If Ukraine objects to being presented with a fait accompli, Putin can conveniently place the blame on Kyiv for any negotiation breakdown, thereby reinforcing Trump’s narrative that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the antagonist.
Team Trump has made their disdain for Zelenskyy abundantly clear, both publicly and privately, highlighted during an intense confrontation in the Oval Office in February. This sentiment has been corroborated by reports of secret talks involving members of Trump’s entourage and Zelenskyy’s political opponents, as revealed by POLITICO earlier this month.
These discussions were part of a broader U.S. strategy to rally support for early elections, under the belief that Zelenskyy would not fare well, despite favorable current opinion polls. According to three unnamed Ukrainian lawmakers and a Republican foreign policy expert, the back-channeling included Trump’s son Don Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner, controversial conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, and Witkoff—only Witkoff holds an official position. POLITICO has sought comments from all four involved, but has yet to receive any responses.
“They view Zelenskyy as an obstacle,” commented the Republican foreign policy expert. “To undermine Zelenskyy and induce compliance, they engage his political rivals, illustrating that the U.S. has alternative partners in Ukraine.”
“However, some in the Trump camp appear to be deluding themselves into thinking they can appoint a Ukrainian ally who will succeed electorally in the near term,” he added. “This reflects a profound misunderstanding of Ukraine.”
Similarly, there may be misconceptions regarding Putin’s intentions as he seeks to dictate the terms of a final agreement even before peace is established—terms that, if accepted, would fulfill his primary war objective: subjugating Ukraine and maintaining it under Moscow’s influence.
“Putin seems to have effectively held the ceasefire proposal hostage as part of his strategy to extract preemptive concessions from U.S. President Donald Trump in negotiations aimed at concluding the war,” noted the Institute for the Study of War.
“Putin is attempting to alter the sequence of talks to compel Trump into making preemptive concessions on issues that lie outside the scope of the U.S.-Ukrainian temporary ceasefire but align closely with Russia’s war objectives,” the think tank cautioned.
