It was a private summit, mediated by the Saudis, with separate delegations for Russia and Ukraine, but with the same director in the background: the United States and, from a distance, its president Donald Trump. The official objective, promoted by Trump since his election campaign through rhetoric about ending the war ’in 24 hours’, is to defuse the conflict, at least partially, starting with a temporary ceasefire.

But the premises for this are already fragile. Negotiations began in mid-February, when Russian and US delegations met for the first time in the Saudi capital, followed on 28 February by the disastrous meeting at the White House between Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump. Finally, last week came the ninety-minute phone call between Trump and Putin, which scaled back the high expectations set by Trump’s communications team.

According to American media reports, the US negotiating tables were spread over several days: first the meeting between the Ukrainian delegation led by Rustem Umerov and Pavlo Palisa; then with the Russian counterparts Grigory Karasin and Sergei Beseda, a former senior FSB official; on Tuesday a further Ukraine-USA meeting. In the short term, there were two main dossiers on the table: the security of navigation in the Black Sea and the mutual suspension of attacks on energy infrastructure for one month.

Russian President Vladimir Putin formally approved the American idea, supporting Trump’s proposal for a mutual freeze on bombings of energy networks for thirty days. This decision was amplified by Russian state media outlets, TASS and RIA Novosti, which emphasised how the Russian autocrat is supporting Trump’s proposals and has ordered Russian armed forces to refrain from striking Ukrainian infrastructure.

After the talks in Riyadh, Russia and Ukraine also agreed to a limited ceasefire in the Black Sea, but Moscow is conditioning its implementation on the easing of sanctions. Zelensky contests the American concessions, fearing a partition of the country behind its back. Therefore, he has returned to criticising the Trump administration, accusing it of complicity with the Kremlin, after toning down his rhetoric following the attack at the Oval Office.

The Meaning of Peace for Ukrainians

Bearing in mind the limitations of opinion polls, especially during an invasion war, the picture might seem contradictory. 77% of Ukrainians positively evaluate the proposal for a 30-day ceasefire, but 79% consider Putin’s conditions completely unacceptable. These two figures, if read out of context, could lend themselves to convenient interpretations for those who want to sell the international public a narrative of willingness to compromise - which in the Kremlin’s demands is equivalent to unconditional capitulation by Kyiv.

The data collected by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) between 12 and 25 March tells of a much more complex and deep-rooted position. The Ukrainian population is willing to consider a truce, but only if it doesn’t imply concessions or illusions about a change in the Russian aggressor’s posture.

“On one hand, Trump’s victory [in the 2024 presidential election] was greeted in Ukraine with some hope; on the other hand, his first steps have caused disappointment in Ukrainian society. The common mood, in my opinion, is more or less this – the active patriotic part of society, the influential minority visible in the media and on social media, is categorically opposed to any concessions and in favour of war until a just peace; ordinary people, the ’silent majority’, are increasingly determined to end the war,” Konstantin Skorin, an independent researcher and expert on the political history of the Donbas, tells Valigia Blu (his analyses have been published by Moscow Times, Foreign Affairs and Carnegie Politika).

“But ending it at all costs, through capitulation to Putin, is certainly not the dominant opinion of this ’silent majority’. People are willing to make concessions to stop the death of Ukrainians, even regarding certain territories such as Crimea and Donbas, but not to totally capitulate to Russia, precisely because no one believes Putin’s promises of peace,” adds Skorkin.

This is demonstrated by the fact that, among those who view the truce proposal positively, the majority (47%) do so because they consider it useful to demonstrate that it is Russia that doesn’t want peace, or that it will continue to violate agreements anyway. An additional 12% interpret the truce as a possible tool to unlock military aid, and only 18% consider it “a first step towards ending the war on terms acceptable to Kyiv”.

In other words, the appreciation for the truce has more to do with the desire to unmask Moscow or gain time, than with real trust in the negotiation process. That the situation on the ground is turning in the Kremlin’s favour is now a fact reported by American intelligence, and even Kyiv’s staunch allies like Czech President Petr Pavel warn of the need to consider territorial concessions.

At the same time, support for the truce drops dramatically if security guarantees aren’t provided. According to the same survey, 62% of respondents stated they would not support a ceasefire in the absence of concrete guarantees. If, for example, the presence of Western peacekeepers were offered, 60% would be willing to accept a temporary interruption of fighting. If the guarantee consisted of moving closer to NATO or strengthening Ukrainian defences, support would remain above 55%, but never total. Consensus only consolidates when Ukrainian security remains under direct or multilateral control and never subordinate to Russian will.

“I believe no one really takes Trump’s so-called ’peace plan’ seriously, not even Trump himself. It’s not actually a peace plan; it’s about ’dividing certain resources’, as Trump himself said. Anyone who follows the news understands this. As for Putin’s willingness to respect an agreement, it’s obvious he won’t, as he never has in the past. Very few in Ukraine, if any, truly believe in Trump’s or Putin’s goodwill,” Hanna Perekhoda, historian and researcher at the University of Lausanne, tells Valigia Blu. “That said, there are always people ready to trade their community’s long-term security for apparent short-term personal security. This doesn’t mean they trust Trump or Putin; rather it reflects the fundamental choice between risking life by acting or remaining still. Many choose the second option, guided by human fear and lack of identification with their community.”

On the other hand, the conditions advanced by Moscow for the truce – cessation of mobilisations, blocking of Western aid, interruption of US intelligence operations – are considered unacceptable by the majority of Ukrainians. Here too, it’s a transversal rejection that unites the centre and west of the country with the east, reflecting the shared conviction that every concession accelerates the possibility of a new aggression, not a truce.

The KIIS data, collected in the days immediately following the temporary suspension of American aid in early March, shows a deep-rooted idea of resistance as a national principle, cutting across classes, territories and political orientations. Even in the eastern regions, those historically most vulnerable to Russian influence, the figure remains at 78%.

This social and military resilience doesn’t come from nowhere. A touching letter from a feminist and anti-authoritarian activist who now works as a military doctor in the Ukrainian Armed Forces tells of the determination that remains alive despite accumulated fatigue: “Yes, we could lose this war. But have all freedom fighters won? Many have fought with far fewer chances than Ukraine. We still have good chances if European countries support us. The end of the war, Ukraine’s future, depend directly on you and me, on solidarity with the oppressed, on a sense of collectivity and on the will for freedom.”

And then there’s another element, of an existential and cultural nature, that emerges between the lines of the same surveys and in the collected accounts: the awareness that the war has become the lens through which Ukrainians reread themselves, their place in the world and the quality of the alliances they can count on. It’s not just a question of survival or sovereignty, but also of collective dignity. Recalling the activist-doctor’s words, not all freedom fighters win, but all make a difference.

In this framework, the American proposal – perceived by many as an attempt at imposed pacification, more functional to global stability than to justice – risks being counterproductive. Far from promoting compromise, it risks fuelling the already strong suspicion that Ukraine’s future is being negotiated elsewhere, and that the rhetoric of “common values” is now being replaced by the cynical language of geopolitical exchanges.

The Beginning of a Partial Truce: A Step Towards Peace or Smoke and Mirrors?

The compromise, at the moment, thus articulates into two points: a naval truce in the Black Sea, still suspended due to conditions imposed by Moscow, and a 30-day moratorium on attacks against energy infrastructure, already operational but effectively violated.

A few hours after the agreement, in fact, Russia launched a drone attack against a hospital and an electrical substation in Slovyansk. “There’s already an air alert, so this ceasefire isn’t working,” Zelensky commented.

Already during the previous weekend, the Russian army had hurled more than 100 drones per day for three consecutive days against Ukrainian cities, causing several civilian deaths, including in the capital Kyiv. On the central day of the Saudi talks, the Russians bombed the centre of Sumy, a large city in eastern Ukraine relatively far from the fighting, injuring 88 people, including 17 children.

Making the situation even more ambiguous is the asymmetry between the parties’ declarations. The White House spoke of a “pause in fighting in the Black Sea” and “commitment to eliminate the use of force”, while the Kremlin reiterated that the naval ceasefire will only take effect with the easing of Western sanctions, particularly those affecting Russian agricultural exports, such as access to the Swift system or maritime insurance.

A detail that is anything but marginal, and which the American version completely omitted. In fact, the Americans promise the Ukrainians to help them in prisoner exchanges, including the return of tens of thousands of minors abducted by Russian forces, while to Moscow they promise easing of economic sanctions - the latter, according to Politico, conditionally accepted, previously, also by Kyiv.

Trump, who initially aimed for a comprehensive ceasefire to create political space for a grand peace agreement, had to publicly admit to the Russian reversal. “Maybe they’re buying time,” he told Newsmax, adding – with his customary ambiguity – that he too, in the past, has used similar tactics to “stay in the game.”

Criticism wasn’t long in coming, especially from Kyiv. The Ukrainian president accused Trump and his emissaries of talking “about us without us”, responding to a previous statement by Trump that had implied that part of the talks with Moscow had concerned Ukraine’s territorial partition. His entourage made it known that no discussion about Donbas, Zaporizhzhya or Kherson has taken place on the Ukrainian side, and that Russian demands – total control of the three regions – continue to be unacceptable.

In parallel, while negotiations continued, military pressure in the field didn’t stop. And even on the symbolic level, the Kremlin reaffirmed its control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, denying any possibility of ceding it, as hypothesised by American sources.

Overall, the first phase of the truce seems to yield a result largely favourable to Russia. The temporary halt to strategic bombings, in fact, freezes one of Ukraine’s most successful military campaigns, that against gas pipelines, refineries and energy hubs deep in Russian territory, and saves Moscow’s hydrocarbon industry for at least a month. In contrast, Russian attacks on the civilian population – from the Sumy oblast, relatively close to the fighting, to the westernmost areas – continue, often with double-strike techniques or targeting hospitals.

Trump presents the agreement as a diplomatic victory, useful for opening a window for broader negotiations. But for Kyiv, which obtains neither security guarantees nor real progress on the political front, the feeling is of being squeezed between Russian aggression and American cynicism.

Fighting against Putin and Trump simultaneously is very difficult, and in this the position of the European Union remains fundamental: which has however failed, last week, to find consensus for the allocation of 40 billion for Kyiv’s defence. Dwelling on the consequences for Europe of an unjust peace process imposed from above on Ukraine, however, should be European leaders’ first thought, compared to national interests and personal squabbles. This awareness doesn’t seem to have arrived yet.

The recent statements by Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff, also appointed as a substitute for Keith Kellogg for relations with Ukraine and Russia, leave no room for doubt. In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Witkoff essentially repeated the Kremlin’s propaganda on the legitimacy of the referendums: both those in Crimea and Donbas in 2014, and in the occupied territories in 2022.

“Tens of thousands of civilians in the occupied regions have been kidnapped, tortured, held in secret prisons, and thousands have disappeared: no one even knows where their bodies are buried. An excellent context for free democratic expression. Only two states - North Korea and Syria - have recognised these ’referendums’, and that says a lot about their democratic credibility,” argues Perekhoda, originally from Donetsk. “If the American administration ever recognised these votes as legitimate, then there would be no doubt: it would be approving and promoting a global standard of ’democracy’ in which armed men show up at your home to make you ’vote’. It’s obvious that Trump’s, Putin’s, Xi’s, Erdogan’s visions of democracy are very similar from this point of view. Those who don’t see the danger of this model will make everyone pay a very high price, sooner or later.”

“Trump’s team pretends to recognise the results of the vote, whose opacity and lack of democracy have been recognised by all international institutions, because it’s convenient for them to do business with Putin. It’s very sad to see,” adds Skorkin. “For me and my friends, forced to leave the Donbas already in 2014, it’s simply offensive to see how representatives of a western democratic country pretend to believe the results of a referendum held literally under the threat of weapons.”

---

Andrea Braschayko

Click here to subscribe to ESSF newsletters in English and or French.