Top US and Ukrainian diplomats held talks, Jeddah, March 11, 2025
The political optics of the joint statement issued after the US-Ukrainian talks at Jeddah on March 11 lasting nine hours is hard to tell since President Donald Trump prides himself on his ability to strike deals. Prima facie, the optics are that Ukraine caved in and accepted a Trump administration proposal for a 30-day cease-fire with Russia and on its part, the latter agreed to immediately lift a pause on intelligence sharing with Kyiv and resume military assistance.
The White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during a Fox News TV broadcast said that Trump “put Zelensky in his place and told him that the Americans are serious about a long-term peace deal…And we are very, very pleased with the way that the Ukrainians and this deal today turned out.”
However, there are fine prints in a joint statement, which add the caveat that “Ukraine expressed readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day cease-fire” if Russia did the same. The statement qualifies that “The United States will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace.”
The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio interpreted that the agreement now puts the pressure on Russia to end the war. He said, “We’ll take this offer now to the Russians, and we hope that they’ll say yes, that they’ll say yes to peace. The ball is now in their court.”
Rubio signalled that if Moscow doesn’t sign up to the ceasefire, “then we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here.” For sure, coercive diplomacy has crept in.
Curiously, even before talks began in Jeddah, Rubio had told reporters, “It should be clear to everyone that the United States has tools available to also impose costs on the Russian side of this equation, but we hope it doesn’t come to that. What we’re hoping is that both sides realise that this is not a conflict that can end by military means; it can only end by diplomatic means. And the President’s goal is to bring them both to the table to get this resolved. But it’s a reminder that we understand that the United States has tools at its disposal if in fact this falls apart, and — but we’re hoping it doesn’t. We really do. We hope it doesn’t reach that point.”
There has been no public indication so far that Russia would accept an unconditional, month-long ceasefire that compromises the core objectives of the special military operations. Indeed, that’s what the Russian people will expect from President Vladimir Putin.
Of course, Putin himself had indicated in January, “The goal should not be a short truce, not some kind of respite for regrouping forces and rearmament with the aim of subsequently continuing the conflict, but a long-term peace based on respect for the legitimate interests of all people, all nations living in this region.”
It will be politically damaging for Moscow to retract from the terms spelt out by Putin last June in his address to the foreign ministry in Moscow as conditions for Russia agreeing to peace talks. Again, the generals’ opinion has to be taken into account. The Russian forces have managed slow but consistent advances in the east in the Donetsk region and are preparing for breaking through into the neighbouring region of Dnipropetrovsk. Only last weekend, after heavy fighting, they managed a significant breakthrough in the Kursk region, coming close to encircling around 10,000 elite Ukrainian troops.
Clearly, it is not going to be easy for Putin to order the generals that it’s time for a ceasefire that may look like a strategic defeat as the Russian forces are still failing in their core strategic goals. Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the international affairs committee of the upper house of Russia’s parliament, probably reflected the mainstream elite opinion in a post on Telegram that: “Russia is advancing. Real agreements are still being written there, at the front. Which they should understand in Washington, too.”
On the other hand, there is no question that Putin’s preference will be to avoid unpleasantness with Trump, leave alone a collision course. Putin has to tread with care, as Trump will not like anyone stopping him from getting his deal.
On Monday, in a subtle suggestion that Putin and Trump are sailing in the same boat, Tass carried two reports (here and here) warning that British activities in Odessa directly threaten Russian interests and, furthermore, that “According to the information received by the SVR (Russian Foreign Intelligence Service), the British leadership sees a threat to its interests in the promotion of dialogue between the US and Russia to resolve the Ukrainian conflict… London is extremely irritated by the fact that Donald Trump ‘dialogues with Russia as a superpower and shows disregard to close allies.’”
The SVR statement added, “The British authorities consider it an ‘urgent priority’ to undermine ‘peacekeeping’ efforts of the new US administration on the Ukrainian track. The media and specialised NGOs are tasked with demonising Trump, portraying him as ‘a man with a poor peacekeeping record and susceptible to Kremlin manipulation.’”
Interestingly, Tass also reported on a telephone conversation between Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Director Sergey Naryshkin and Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Ratcliffe. The sir readout said, “the parties discussed the issues of interaction of both intelligence agencies in areas of common interest and the settlement of crisis situations” and reached an agreement “on maintaining regular contact between the SVR and CIA directors with the aim of facilitating international stability and security and reducing confrontation in relationships between Moscow and Washington.”
Evidently, Zelensky, tutored by his American friends and European advisers, has decided on a play-along strategy to avoid antagonising Trump counting, arguably, that he should leave it to Putin to cross and disappoint Trump. Put differently, in an iterative process, Ukraine needs to project itself as the constructive party.
That said, in the final analysis, the dynamics are such that personal diplomacy rather than ideological commitments or even military achievements may come to prevail. The outcome will depend on the personal agreements — or the lack thereof — between Putin and Trump.
Trump himself told reporters that he thought he would speak with Putin this week and that he hoped a lasting cease-fire would be negotiated in the coming days. Meanwhile, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is reportedly planning to travel to Moscow to meet Putin. He had a meeting with Putin lasting several hours last month.
The bottom line is that one way or another, Moscow will have to decide quickly how to play Trump. To my mind, in this bouquet of thorny roses out of Jeddah, the likelihood is that Putin may opt to string discussions out by offering a succession of counter proposals.