Once Again About Peace Talks: the Situation Is Complicated, but not Hopeless
According to most experts and politicians’ reports, widely spread by the media, negotiations to end the war have reached a deadlock, while Moscow is about to launch a summer offensive. We have already mentioned that this is not entirely true, but this topic remains relevant. Especially since the events around the negotiations are developing dynamically, and Russia continues to actively attack on the frontline. The peace talks are indeed extremely complex in nature and involve a number of significant problems. But the situation must not be considered hopeless. Sadly, Ukraine will not be able to restore its territorial integrity for the time being, but we will not lose it as a state. Without giving up its destruction, Russia will be forced to suspend the war.
Negotiations to end Russia’s war against Ukraine and their distortion by the media are a topical issue that requires further consideration. Especially since the content of the negotiation process is being distorted by the media, politicians and experts again, which is already beginning to threaten Ukraine’s security. In particular, we are talking about the spread of decadent moods in Ukrainian society, people’s disbelief in the possibility of restoring peace. Some people do not hope that Ukraine will survive as an independent state at all. And what is most appalling is that such a vision leads to thoughts about the need for reconciliation with Russia on any terms. And this is exactly what Russia wants.
And how could it be otherwise when Ukrainians are persistently being imposed on the information narratives about the failure of the negotiations, about Russia’s delaying the dialogue and its preparations for a summer offensive. There are also talks about D. Trump’s siding with Moscow and his refusal to put pressure on it, his intention to withdraw from the talks, and Putin’s ability to outplay his opponents. Let alone the imposing of the idea that the US administration is helpless…
As in the past, all such statements are actively spread by American and European publications, including Bloomberg, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, Deutsche Welle, and Politico. They distort information or invent facts that never happened. At the same time, such publications openly negatively cover events related to the peace talks. Here is just one such fact. According to Politico, on May 21, the United States allegedly opposed criticism of Russia in a joint statement by the G7 during the meeting in Canada, the first of its kind. In reality, nothing of the sort happened. As expected, in their resolution, the G7 leaders harshly condemned Moscow’s position and expressed their firm intention to impose tough sanctions against it if it continues to delay the negotiations. And this is not an isolated case, there is the whole system.
What else can I say here? There are no words. Except to ask our experts: don’t they see what is happening and why do they repeat such foreign media’s fabrications? Moreover, their fictitious facts are actively analyzed in the Ukrainian information space as if they were true. Of course, this can be explained by the psychology of ordinary people who believe everything that the media present. But professional analysts must distinguish the wheat from the chaff. So let’s look at what is really going on around the negotiations. I fully agree that the situation is complicated, but it is far from hopeless.
As you know, the negotiation process has now reached the stage of direct dialogue between Ukraine and Russia, which is the result of a preliminary agreement on the positions of the parties with the mediation of the United States. The first meeting of the delegations of the two countries took place on May 16 this year and did not end in failure, as the media reported. Representatives of the Russian Federation did behave defiantly, made threats and again put forward ceasefire conditions that were unacceptable to Ukraine. All of this is completely characteristic of Russia and Russians, and nothing else could be expected from them. However, this was just external support for the negotiations and an element of pressure on Ukraine, while in reality, it did not mean anything special.
The real outcome of the meeting was an agreement that each side would prepare its own proposals on the terms of the ceasefire, which could, in principle, be agreed upon. Once again, I emphasize that these are not some unrealistic fantasies or exaggerated demands, but something that can be mutually agreed upon.
The future document was called a “memorandum”, which became the pretext for another information campaign, this time with underestimating its importance. But that’s not the point. No matter what the document is called, without a clear definition and agreement on the conditions for the cessation of hostilities, as well as mechanisms for their implementation, the announcement of a truce will be an empty formality.
This was clearly demonstrated by the ceasefires of 2014-2015 during the armed conflict in the Donbas, as well as on Easter and Victory Day this year. Moreover, the ceasefire conditions are a whole set of issues, the most difficult of which are monitoring the parties’ fulfillment of their obligations, disengagement of their troops, and deployment of peacekeeping forces between them.
And if it is still possible to organize such monitoring, how, for example, can be implemented the proposal to withdraw troops at 15 kilometers from the front line? Especially in the areas of such cities as Pokrovsk, Chasiv Yar, Toretsk and Kurakhovo. Neither Ukraine nor Russia would simply abandon them. And what about those parts of the border between Ukraine and Russia where there are no active hostilities, but powerful defensive fortifications have already been created? No one will leave them either.
Besides, it is necessary to form a peacekeeping force that would satisfy both Ukraine and Russia. So far, no one has shown much desire to send their contingents to them. This is also understandable, because Russia’s war against Ukraine is completely different from the civil war in the former Yugoslavia or the operation in Iraq. The same is true about monitoring the ceasefire. This requires military observers, who will also be under constant threat. This, by the way, was demonstrated by the situation around the OSCE Observer Mission in the Donbas.
Resolving these problems will take lots of time, which is the main reason for the delay in negotiations.
Of course, Moscow is also making its contribution, but this cannot be taken unequivocally. On the one hand, it is really interested in delaying the negotiations and prolonging the war in order to put pressure on Ukraine and seize its territories. On the other hand, the Russian leadership is facing increasing economic problems that are reaching a critical level. Thus, while the growth rate of the Russian economy was falling at the beginning of this year, now the country’s production volumes are beginning to decline significantly. Besides, the Russian state budget deficit has increased sharply, which has reduced the allocation of funds for military needs.
It is in this state of affairs that preparations are underway for the second round of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, during which the parties’ proposals for ending the war are to be discussed. According to various estimates, they may take place in late May or mid-June. For example, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Lavrov has already promised to present a list of Russian conditions immediately after the completion of the 1000-for-1000 prisoner exchange, i.e., in the near future. However, even if Moscow starts to delay the negotiations, it will not be allowed to do so. The G7 members, the EU leadership, and leading European countries have expressed their firm intention to impose new sanctions on Russia if it does not agree to a ceasefire within a short timeframe. Their statements on this matter are well known and do not need to be repeated. I think everyone will agree with me.
The United States has a similar position, although it seems different. D. Trump demonstrates patience and restraint with Russia, but this does not mean that he is following Russia’s lead politely. Such actions of the US President reflect his approach to resolving the problem of ending the war. In particular, he assumes that it is possible to persuade Putin that he needs to reconcile with Ukraine on mutually acceptable terms. Otherwise, he will face sanctions that could be used as a “last resort”.
An example of D. Trump’s use of this approach was his telephone conversation with Putin on May 19, 2025. During the conversation, Putin promised him that Russia would prepare its own ceasefire conditions in the near future (which was confirmed by Lavrov on May 23, 2025). At this, they may be acceptable to Ukraine. That is why D. Trump did not raise the issue of sanctions, as he explained to journalists after his conversation with Putin.
By the way, in addition to the war, the talks addressed other aspects of US-Russian relations, including contacts between the two countries in the area of strategic stability, the exchange of imprisoned citizens of the two countries, and the resumption of trade and economic relations after peace is established. The two sides agreed on most of them, which D. Trump considered a positive result of the conversation. The fact that this irritated journalists, who began to make claims to D. Trump on this issue, can only be explained by their biased rather than objective attitude to the situation.
Even more far-fetched and untrue are the journalists’ claims that D. Trump is going to withdraw from the negotiation process. He did say that he might do so if they reached a deadlock. They only reached that point in the imagination of some experts. That is why D. Trump has not withdrawn from the process and is not going to do so. And his words that this is “not his war” refer to something else entirely. True, his explanation to South African President S. Ramaphosa that he is only a mediator in a peaceful settlement sounded not perfectly worded.
Trump is only transferring some of his mediation functions to the EU and European countries. Not only do they not mind this, but from the very beginning they have been demanding to be given this opportunity. In addition, the United States and Europe have long been coordinating their actions against Russia. This cancels the myth that the United States has removed Europe from the issue of putting an end to the war, which is of fundamental importance to its security.
But let’s get back to Russia. It is hard to say whether it will fulfill its promises. Most likely, it will not at first. But then it will be hit with a powerful sanctions blow that it is unlikely to withstand. Therefore, one way or another, Moscow will be forced to make concessions. Sadly, it will take time and human lives, but there is no other way out.
In addition, I would like to talk once again about the myths created by journalists and experts. We have already mentioned that Russia will not be able to carry out any large-scale offensive operation with a breakthrough of the front line this summer. Nothing has changed since then. Moscow will not be able to capture Kharkiv and Sumy regions either. Unless it tries to create a buffer zone, which it is trying to do. In Kharkiv region since May last year, and in Sumy region since March-April this year. Russia has not made much progress either way. On the contrary, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are creating their own buffer zone in Kursk and Belgorod regions of Russia.
By the way, Putin did talk about creating a buffer zone after the start of peace talks mediated by D. Trump. Perhaps this could be called their failure. Although such statements were mostly aimed at the Russians themselves, and not at all of them, but at those who live in the border areas and are under constant shelling.
But the idea to seize Sumy, which appeared in the media during Putin’s or his double’s visit to Kursk region in May of this year against the background of the beginning of a direct dialogue between Ukraine and Russia, was not voiced by him. It was put forward by head of Glushkovsky district, Zolotarev. As for Putin, he distanced himself from it and limited it to a joke. He would certainly like to seize the city of Sumy, but under the current circumstances he refrains from publicly declaring such an intention.
And this is not an isolated case of distortion of facts by the media. Recently, our media again spoke of Russia’s demands for elections in Ukraine as a precondition for a peace agreement. At this, reference is made to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, who allegedly voiced such a demand. In fact, he did not demand anything and said only that Moscow would like to see elections in Ukraine to conclude a peace agreement. But again, wanting and demanding are completely different things. Despite demonstrating its desire for a change of government in Ukraine, the Kremlin is engaged in a dialogue with the current government. Moreover, it is considering the potential possibility of organizing Putin’s meeting with Zelenskyy, not with someone else.
All of the above does not represent any alternative views or a lack of understanding of the problems in resolving the issue of putting an end to the war. This is how Ukraine’s leadership interprets the situation, not only does it not talk about the failure of the negotiations, but it is actively preparing for their continuation. Thus, in President of Ukraine V. Zelenskyy’s words during a meeting with the military command of our country on May 22, Kyiv is working on organizing the next technical meeting with Russia, which should happen as soon as possible.
Unfortunately, the clear and unambiguous position of the Ukrainian government is being blurred by irresponsible media reports. I have already explained why the American media do this. Some of them are used by D. Trump’s political opponents to discredit him over the Ukrainian issue. That is, they are doing exactly what he himself did in relation to J. Biden during the election campaign last year.
These American publications have high credibility, although they themselves undermine it with their work. And they are still trusted, including in Ukraine. Moreover, in such a terrible situation as war, people usually tend to believe the negative rather than the positive. So, as the saying goes, we have what we have. But it needs to be corrected, and we are doing our best.
The conclusion of the article may be its introduction. The situation around the peace talks is complicated, but not hopeless. We will face many more problems, including a possible intensification of Russia’s offensive on the frontline and new strikes on Ukraine, such as the one on the night of May 23-24, 2025. But Russia will be forced to compromise, because there is no other way out.
I am in no way justifying D. Trump’s attitude to Ukraine, which really does seem heartless. But I understand him. The war is a tragedy for us and a real threat to Europe. But for most Americans, it is a distant event that has nothing to do with them.
However, let’s look at ourselves. In the 1990s, a civil war broke out in the former Yugoslavia, not far from Ukraine, on a much smaller scale than Russia’s war against Ukraine, but it was just as tragic for its population.
No one in Ukraine was particularly concerned about it at the time, even though our peacekeeping contingent was there. The consequences of this war are still felt in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was one of the Yugoslav republics. Who here can say what the root causes of that war were and still are? And, in general, is Bosnia and Herzegovina one country, two, or more?
I purposefully asked people about this, including those who should know. Most of them could not answer correctly. So why do we expect to be treated differently?
Yuriy Mykhailenko,
Institute for Global Politics
