President Donald Trump will speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week to discuss the viability of ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with a trio of high-ranking Ukrainian officials in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where diplomats hammered out a proposal for peace that would establish a preliminary 30-day ceasefire.
Putin responded to the proposal with mixed messages, simultaneously affirming that the crux of the proposal was “good” and “correct” but signaling opposition to signing due to concerns about how soldiers in occupied areas of Russia would be handled.
The phone call scheduled for Tuesday will be an opportunity for the U.S. and other world powers to gain some insight into the Kremlin’s machinations.
Is Putin sincere about his willingness to negotiate peace?
The most pressing question U.S. leaders must find an answer to is whether Putin is sincerely interested in establishing lasting peace in Ukraine or if his reserved praise of the proposal is meant to string along the White House and Kyiv.
“We agree with the proposal to cease hostilities. But we believe this cessation should lead to long-term peace and eliminate the root causes of the conflict,” Putin previously said of the proposal.
His specific contentions revolve around the 30-day time frame of the ceasefire. He said Ukraine could use the pause to regroup and fortify its position.
“How will these 30 days be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To send more weapons there?” he added. “How will issues of control and verification be handled — how can we be guaranteed that none of this will happen?”
He also expressed frustration about the immediate fate of Ukrainian soldiers occupying Russian land in the Kursk region and elsewhere.
“Are we supposed to let them go after they committed mass crimes against civilians?” Putin asked. “Or will the Ukrainian leadership order them to lay down arms and surrender?”
Critics say these points of disagreement are designed to hide the Kremlin’s desire to continue fighting while Russian forces make progress on the front lines and surge deeper into Ukrainian territory.
“After the talks in Jeddah and the American proposal for a ceasefire on the front line, Russia stole almost another week — a week of war that only Russia wants,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said via social media on Sunday.
“We will do everything to further intensify diplomacy. We will do everything to make diplomacy effective. But every day now is about defending our independence, our state, and our people,” he continued.
The longer the conflict continues in its current trajectory, the more influence and land Russia will be able to amass from the overwhelmed Ukrainian military.
What would be exchanged in a peace deal?
The granular details of the U.S.-Ukraine proposal remain unknown, but the division and allocation of contested territories will undoubtedly be a stumbling block to finalizing a ceasefire.
Trump told the press aboard Air Force One on Sunday that his conversation with Putin would touch on “dividing up certain assets” between Russia and Ukraine.
“We will be talking about land. We will be talking about power plants,” he said. “I think a lot of it has already been discussed at length by both sides, Ukraine and Russia.”
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, occupied by Russia since 2022, is among the most prominent assets to be allocated. It is a crucial piece of energy infrastructure for Ukraine, and Kyiv has repeatedly demanded that Moscow pull troops out of the area, which is currently not in operation.
Russia is clear it will not accept a deal that does not return control of the Kursk region, which remains occupied by Ukrainian soldiers.
The Russian military continues to reclaim territory in Kursk, and on a long enough timeline, the region may be reclaimed without the aid of the U.S. — a scenario that would lose one of Ukraine’s most valuable bargaining chips.
Is Trump prepared to strong-arm the Kremlin if necessary?
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, perhaps Putin’s closest ally on the world stage, said last week that he is convinced U.S. officials will be unable to put forward an acceptable plan for the ceasefire.
“I can say for sure the Americans have no plan for the conflict in Ukraine. Absolutely none,” he said, according to translations from the Moscow Times. “It’s easier for [Russia] on the front line, that’s why they have the big cards, as Trump said.”
Earlier this month, Trump treated Zelensky with hostility during a meeting in the Oval Office over a perceived lack of commitment to U.S. plans for peace.
Trump called the Ukrainian president a “dictator” and accused him of warmongering for his own benefit. But when Zelensky showed deference to the White House, Trump relented.
It’s unclear if Trump is willing to direct the same harsh rhetoric at Putin if the Russian president fails to signal a cooperative spirit in the negotiations, but he has already floated the idea of punishing the invading nation economically.
“I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED,” he posted to his social media site, Truth Social. “To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late.”
How will Ukraine remain protected in the future?
A long-term peace agreement will do little to quell the fears of the Ukrainian public without some sort of security guarantee to prevent future resumption of hostilities.
Russia is clear that Ukraine receiving NATO membership is off the table. Similarly, the Kremlin has made clear the mere presence of NATO peacekeepers in the region would tank any peace agreement.
Zelensky said following the Jeddah meeting that all involved parties “need to put security guarantees on paper.” He tempered expectations for Ukraine to gain a seat in NATO but criticized the idea that Russia had a say in such decisions.
US TO WITHDRAW FROM BODY INVESTIGATING RUSSIAN RESPONSIBILITY FOR UKRAINE WAR
“We understand that the decision regarding NATO membership or any other format should depend on NATO allies or other partners, but certainly not on Russia’s desires or their vision, especially not on Russia’s veto over NATO,” he wrote in a social media statement. “They have no legal authority here, and we should not give them the chance to exert such influence.”
An option remains for Ukraine to patch together individual security agreements with its strongest European allies, such as France and the United Kingdom, to form a non-NATO alliance of protector states.
The White House is signaling that postwar investment in Ukraine would serve as a de facto security agreement, entangling American interests and creating much greater risks for future Russian invasions.