The Long Call
Following his two-hour-long telephone call with President Putin on May 19, President Trump claimed that his conversation with the Russian leader went very well and that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to start negotiations toward a ceasefire immediately. He also said, “Russia wants to do large-scale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic ‘bloodbath’ is over, and I agree. There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED. Likewise, Ukraine can be a great beneficiary on Trade, in the process of rebuilding its Country.”[i]
Washington’s Western allies hardly shared his optimism.
Mr. Putin said:
“We agreed with the President of the United States that Russia would propose and is ready to engage with the Ukrainian side on drafting a memorandum regarding a potential future peace agreement. This would include outlining a range of provisions, such as the principles for settlement, the timeframe for a possible peace deal, and other matters, including a potential temporary ceasefire, should the necessary agreements be reached.” He added that Russia’s position is clear, and eliminating the root causes of this crisis is what matters most to Moscow.[ii]
Later, Mr. Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov said that the two leaders agreed to prepare a humanitarian prisoner exchange involving nine people from each side, a “9-for-9” swap. The two presidents must have been inspired by the prisoner-of-war exchange deal reached in the Istanbul talks.
Thus, neither leader wanted to acknowledge a break or failure. However, yesterday’s Russian aerial attacks appear to have frustrated Mr. Trump, as reflected in his choice of words in criticizing President Putin while also taking a jab at Mr. Zelensky.
Whenever talks between Russia and Ukraine resume, the key would be “drafting a memorandum regarding a potential future peace agreement”. From Moscow’s perspective, such a memorandum’s top items would be:
Kyiv’s acceptance of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
Kyiv’s ceding more territory to Russia than the areas already occupied by the Russian armed forces.
A commitment by Kyiv, endorsed by the West, that Ukraine will never join NATO.
Among the foregoing, cessation of territory to Russia, particularly, so far unoccupied areas will put Kyiv in a predicament after years of loss of life, suffering, and devastation under Russian attacks. Thus, accepting facts on the ground rather than a formal peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine appears likely even in the long term.
Russia remains vague regarding the security assurances that Kyiv would like to have once hostilities end.
In February 2025, France and the UK floated the idea of a “coalition of the willing” and sending a peace-keeping force, potentially ranging from 10,000 to 40,000 troops from the EU and the UK, as a guarantee after a peace deal. However, the idea was received with skepticism in other EU capitals. It was seen as an attempt to avoid the growing impression that Europe was being sidelined by Moscow and Washington in charting a path toward peace in Ukraine. Moscow would not agree to such an arrangement.
Parallel with its desire to dictate its terms of peace to Kyiv, Moscow also wishes to restore its relations with Washington and the EU countries for economic reasons. Would such considerations impact its approach to a ceasefire or peace deal at the negotiation table? Probably to a certain extent, but not in the short term, at least.
Last week, the EU approved a new package of sanctions on Russia on Tuesday, targeting covert oil exports. These are the 17th set of sanctions, and reportedly, officials are already discussing the 18th package that could go after gas pipelines, hit banks, and further hamper Russia’s global energy sales. However, although Russia’s economy contracted sharply in 2022, it has rebounded, and analysts expect growth to continue slowly this year. Moreover, Russia has turned to new markets, and its trade with China has reached a record high.[iii]
There are some efforts in the US Congress to impose further sanctions on Russia, but for these to be supported by the White House, Mr. Trump has to give up his search for a peace deal completely. This is unlikely in the immediate term. Last week, he said that he would not stop brokering talks between the two countries but added that he had a “red line in his head”. And following yesterday’s aerial attacks, Mr. Trump told reporters that he’s “absolutely” considering additional sanctions against Russia.
In the meantime, the Trump administration has devised plans to spend up to $250 million earmarked for foreign assistance to fund instead the removal and return of people from active conflict zones, including 200,000 Ukrainian and 500,000 Haitian migrants who came to the US to escape ongoing violence back home. According to draft internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post, immigrants who volunteer to “self-deport” to their home countries would be eligible for $1,000 stipends from the U.S. government.[iv]
The dilemmas facing Kyiv lead me to ask, yet again, if the entire story could have been written differently.
On a different note, last Wednesday, President Trump, as widely reported by the Western media, “ambushed” President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa with false claims about a genocide against white Afrikaner farmers. Mr. Ramaphosa kept cool and even joked saying, “I am sorry I don’t have a plane to give you.”
South Africa filed a Memorial to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on October 28, 2024, on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa vs. Israel).[v] Was Mr. Trump rebuking South Africa for the case it brought against Israel while remaining silent on the loss of life in Gaza? How much was he briefed about South Africa’s history? How come Trump’s printed-out news articles of South Africa’s ‘white genocide’ contained images from the Democratic Republic of Congo?
Also last Wednesday, Secretary of State Rubio, testifying in Congress, agreed that Russia is an aggressor toward Ukraine, but declined to label Russian President Vladimir Putin as a war criminal. Interestingly, on March 17, 2023, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for President Putin in the context of the situation in Ukraine, and the Biden administration cheered. The warrant limited the number of countries that Mr. Putin could confidently visit.
On November 21, 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court unanimously issued arrest warrants for Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant. President Biden called the warrants “outrageous”.
In a world of conflict, consistency is becoming an increasingly rare commodity.
[i] https://ru.usembassy.gov/president-trumps-statement-on-his-call-with-president-vladimir-putin/
[ii] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76953
[iii] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/world/europe/european-union-russia-sanctions.html?smid=em-share
[iv] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/20/trump-deporations-ukrainians-haitians/
[v] https://dirco.gov.za/south-africa-delivers-evidence-of-israel-genocide-to-icj/#:~:text=South%20Africa%20has%20filed%20its,Israel).