The
Trump administration is claiming progress in its efforts to end the
Russia-Ukraine war, but each side is interpreting the ceasefires
differently and the fighting persists.
Ukraine
(and initially the United States) talked about a ceasefire for all
civilian infrastructure, while Russia said it was for energy
infrastructure alone, and both sides claimed almost immediately the
other had violated it. For the Black Sea, meanwhile, Russia saw it as a
chance to lift sanctions on its banks, while Ukraine said it included
port infrastructure.
It
was a conflict President Donald Trump said he could solve in 24 hours
during his campaign, but the results since, while much trumpeted by the
administration, have sapped confidence in the negotiations and the
evenhandedness of the American negotiators by participants and outside
observers alike.
Trump
insisted on Wednesday from the White House Rose Garden that the
negotiations were going well: “We’re being given good cooperation by
Russia and by Ukraine. But we have to get it stopped.”
Trump’s display of temper last weekend — when he criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin
for seeking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s replacement even
before peace talks could take place — was the first tacit admission that
the talks so far are not going as planned, with the Kremlin offering no
meaningful compromises despite a number of important gestures from the United States.
Secretary
of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s brief flash of ire on Friday,
saying that the administration needs to “begin to see real progress”
from Russia soon, “or we’ll have to conclude that they’re not interested
in peace.”
Trump would not “fall into the trap of endless negotiations about negotiations,” he told reporters at NATO, after meetings with his European counterparts.
France
and Britain also sought to step up that pressure on Friday. “Russia
owes an answer to the United State that has worked very hard to come up
with a mediation effort,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told
reporters. “Putin continues to obfuscate, continues to drag his feet. He
could accept a ceasefire now,” said his British counterpart, David
Lammy.
But despite Trump’s apparent anger at Putin, his administration continues to offer him important concessions.
On Wednesday, Kirill Dmitriev, a close Putin ally and head of the sovereign wealth fund,
became the most senior Russian official to visit Washington since the
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. He held talks with Trump’s special
envoy Steve Witkoff and Rubio despite being under U.S. sanctions, which
would have had to be temporarily lifted for the trip.
Dmitriev
said on Thursday that he met several administration officials and
discussed the resumption of direct Russian flights to the United States.
He claimed that “significant progress had been made on the ceasefire.”
Witkoff,
in an interview last month, called the talks between Putin and Trump
“epic” and “transformational” and “enormously beneficial for the world
at large.”
Thomas
Graham, senior director for Russia at the National Security Council
under the George W. Bush, said the positive assessment of the meetings
and the lack of concessions demanded from Russia shows “the Trump
administration is very intent on demonstrating progress, things that
they can point to as success and covering up the challenges ahead.”
Joshua
Huminski, a senior vice president at the Center for the Study of the
Presidency and Congress, downplayed these doubts, however, and said the
Trump administration’s approach to the talks was all about initial
confidence-building measures.
“I
think this is kind of relearning the art of negotiating, the art of the
deal in the Trump era,” he said. Trump’s unusual approach to
negotiation was an advantage, he contended. “I think this is a New York
property developer approach to setting the diplomatic negotiating agenda
and keeping negotiating partners off balance.”
Many
Ukrainians, however, are already losing trust in the peace talks, with
75 percent saying that under Trump, Ukrainians could expect an unfair or
partly unfair peace deal, according to a poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.
These
fears grew after the Trump administration surrendered some of its
strongest tools of leverage at the outset — including normalizing
relations with Moscow and accepting Russia’s conditions that it gets to keep most of the territory it seized by force and barring Ukraine from NATO.
“I’ve
had questions, too, about impartiality and fairness,” said Thomas
Greminger, head of the Geneva Center for Security Policy and former
director general of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe.
“We
have seen President Trump and other members of the U.S. government
regularly and publicly making concessions. And that’s normally not what
you do in a process running up to negotiations,” he said. “That is a
huge difference to what we’ve been hearing from the Russian side.”
‘Gift that keeps on giving’
The
Russian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, arrives in
Saudi Arabia to meet with their American counterparts on Feb. 18.
(Russian Foreign Ministry/Anadolu/Getty Images)
Critics
contend that the U.S. negotiation team is no match for the hardened
ex-Soviet officials with decades of negotiating experience and knowledge
of Ukraine. The Russian team includes longtime Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov, presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, former diplomat Grigory Karasin,
and Sergey Beseda, former head of the FSB’s Fifth Service, which
oversees intelligence operations in Ukraine and the former Soviet
territories.
The
U.S. team is not made up of experienced Russia experts, said Alexander
Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, while Trump’s
main Russia envoy, Witkoff, is a property developer and friend of the
president.
“For
the Russians, it is a very kind of easy team, and they’re definitely
running circles around their American counterparts. And for now, I think
that they’re quite successful,” he said. Russia’s success in convincing
the Trump administration to work on improving ties on a parallel track
to the peace talks — not as a condition of progress on peace — was “a
big victory for Russian diplomacy.”
“The
Russians expect that Trump may be the gift that keeps on giving to
Russian foreign policy goals,” said Gabuev, including “destroying
transatlantic unity, which has been [a] Russian foreign policy goal for
many years, if not centuries.”
Trump’s
foreign policy shift and threats toward allies are seen by the Kremlin
as “a real revolution” and a “window of opportunity,” said Russian
analyst Vladimir Pastukhov of the University College London’s School of
Slavonic and East European Studies. “They are trying to use some
tactical benefits from the changing circumstances.”
Russian narratives
Special envoy Steve Witkoff attends a news conference at the White House in February. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Russia’s
moves have left the American side exposed multiple times throughout the
process: Before meeting Witkoff last month in Moscow, for example,
Putin floated an unconfirmed story that a large group of Ukrainian
soldiers was surrounded as Russian forces retook territory in the Kursk
region. Trump repeated the story uncritically and asked Putin to show mercy.
After last month’s phone call with Trump and Putin,
the Trump team announced a 30-day partial ceasefire on both energy and
infrastructure — but the Kremlin statement said this applied only to
energy infrastructure. The U.S. then adopted this version, without
explaining the shift.
There were more discrepancies last week: The U.S. announced that both sides had agreed to a Black Sea ceasefire,
but the Kremlin then released a list of conditions before this could
take place, including lifting sanctions on several Russian financial
institutions — major concessions that would have required a European buy-in that was not there.
“So
for all practical purpose, there is not a ceasefire. There is not a
Black Sea initiative that has been agreed by the Ukrainians and
Russians. We have the illusion of progress with no concrete steps toward
implementing the actions that the administration is talking about,”
said Graham.
But
the lopsided nature of the process became clearer when Witkoff
unquestioningly repeated several more of Putin’s false claims, including
that Ukrainian regions annexed by Moscow wanted to be Russian because
citizens voted for this in referendums — even though the referendums of
occupied populations are not legal under international law, according to the United Nations.
“He
appears to be more Putin’s envoy to Trump than the other way round,”
Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King’s College
London, wrote in an analysis.
“It is usually wise for someone who wishes to play an intermediary role
to keep their cards close to their chest and avoid alienating either
side.”
Witkoff
also gushed in an interview about Putin telling him that he visited his
local church to pray for Trump after an assassination attempt in July.
“What
comes through is that he is fundamentally uninformed about the nature
of the conflict and has never really dealt with Russia before, and
doesn’t understand the negotiating tactics and particularly how Putin
might try to manipulate the situation,” said Graham.
When
asked whether he was concerned that Witkoff was voicing Kremlin
propaganda, Zelensky said in an interview last week with four European
journalists: “Witkoff indeed very frequently quotes the Kremlin
narratives. I believe this won’t bring us closer to peace.”
Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, right, speaks during a TV special with
the European Broadcasting Union in Paris on March 26. (Ludovic
Marin/AFP/Getty Images)
With
the emerging doubts about the peace process, both sides are maneuvering
to take advantage — or avoid a military disadvantage — should they
fail. Russia’s goal is to see Ukraine blamed if peace talks fail so that
the U.S. halts military and intelligence support, opening a path to
military victory. Ukraine seeks the opposite.
On
Tuesday, Moscow reinforced its hard-line, maximalist demands when
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov complained that Russia’s
demand “to solve the problems related to the root causes of the
conflict” was being ignored by the U.S., and “we cannot accept all of
this as it is.”
As
the U.S. overstates its progress in talks, Moscow seems concerned that
Trump’s negotiators do not understand how serious it is about these
demands, said Graham.
“The
question is whether the administration has the patience to continue
those negotiations and whether they can conduct the negotiations in ways
that can extract concessions from the Russian side,” he said.
Ellen Francis and Missy Ryan in Brussels, and Michael Birnbaum in Washington contributed to this report.