Ukraine: it’s clear right now there are no serious plans for peace
When it comes to the sincerity, or otherwise, of Vladimir Putin’s apparent willingness to talk peace with Ukraine, the Russian leader has given us plenty of hints. He may insist he wants to see a deal…
Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor
23 May 2025
When it comes to the sincerity, or otherwise, of Vladimir Putin’s apparent willingness to talk peace with Ukraine, the Russian leader has given us plenty of hints. He may insist he wants to see a deal done and an end to the killing. But his insistence that any agreement would have to address the “root causes” of the war is a clear indication that he hasn’t rowed back from his original maximalist war aims. To whit: no Nato membership, a Kremlin-friendly government in Kyiv, ownership of Crimea and control – preferably annexation – of the four provinces of Ukraine presently under Russian occupation.
Meanwhile his great ally Dmitry Medvedev continues to insist that there are at present no Ukrainian officials who legitimately qualify as partners for negotiation. The Russian national security council secretary claims that Ukraine is a “failed state” whose leaders’ lack of legitimacy, meanwhile, raise “serious questions” about who Russia can conclude any agreement with.
So when Donald Trump said this week after a two-hour chat with Putin that Russia and Ukraine would “immediately start negotiations” toward a ceasefire, it’s not clear who he thought the Russian president was planning to talk to if, as Putin and his cronies insist, Zelensky and his team are not legitimate. And, from what he had to say about his recent phone call with Putin, it appears that Trump has his eyes more on the sorts of deals that might be done with Russia once this is all cleared up.
As he posted on his Truth Social platform after talking with Putin: “Russia wants to do largescale [sic] 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.”
Accordingly, he has backed away from his previous willingness to join Europe in imposing fresh sanctions on Russia. Meanwhile Russia continues to hammer Ukraine both on the battlefield and via ever larger drone and missiles attacks against its civilian population.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
The real clue to Trump’s attitude, writes Stefan Wolff, is the order of phone calls on Monday. Before settling down to talk with Putin, the US president put in a call to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Reporting back on the call, Zelensky said he had urged Trump that he mustn’t make any decisions about Ukraine “without us”. Having subsequently spoken at length with Putin, Trump emerged saying in his Truth Social post that Russia and Ukraine will “immediately start negotiations” towards a ceasefire and an end to the war.
The state of the conflict in Ukraine, May 21 2025.Institute for the Study of War
But Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham who has written regularly here about the conflict, believes that the fact that Trump added the conditions for peace “will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be” suggests he is indeed planning to abandon his peacemaking ambitions. The whole deal was taking far longer than the 24 hours he boasted of during the election campaign last year.
Where this leaves Europe is unclear, writes Wolff. If it can no longer rely on Washington as a security partner (and the signs aren’t good), then this will require a substantial rethink. Indeed there are signs, with the UK’s recent agreement over security and defence, that minds are increasingly focused on a more self-reliant future. In turn, this has implications for US security. If Europe is compelled to rethink its security relationship with the US it could cut both ways as Washington pivots to face an increasingly aggressive China.
Of course, it should have been clear to all concerned not to take Putin at face value over his apparent willingness to talk peace with Zelensky when he failed to turn up to talks in Istanbul at the end of last week. As Natasha Lindstaedt writes here, none of the main players attended the talks, despite plans for Putin, Zelensky and Trump to all meet face-to-face.
Lindstaedt, an expert in international relations at the University of Essex, describes what for all the world seemed like a bizarre game of bluff – certainly as far as Putin and Trump are concerned. All three leaders had promised to be there, but in the end they all sent intermediaries with the result that nothing of any consequence was agreed. Trump’s aides insisted that if Putin attended he would be there. Then the US president said the reason that Putin hadn’t turned up was because he knew Trump wasn’t going to be there.
“It’s certainly hard to take peace talks seriously when there is an awkward back-and-forth just about who is going to attend,” Lindstaedt concludes. “And while Trump thinks peace is only possible through bilateral meetings between himself and Putin, it’s clear he can’t even influence Putin to show up to peace talks that the Russian president himself suggested.”
The US president, meanwhile, has announced plans for an ambitious missile defence system to be called “Golden Dome”. It’s a next-generation system, says Trump, “capable even of intercepting missiles launched from the other side of the world, or launched from space”.
The plan, for which US$25 billion (£18.6 billion) has been set aside in the US president’s “one big beautiful bill”, presently before the US Congress, calls for a network of surveillance satellites complemented by a separate fleet of offensive satellites that would shoot down offensive missiles soon after lift-off. Trump has estimated this will cost US$175 billion and will be completed by the end of his current four-year term. But other estimates are that it will be much more expensive and take far longer to complete.
“There has never been anything like this”, the US president said. And indeed there hasn’t, writes Matthew Powell, an expert in air power from the University of Portsmouth. In fact, Powell is deeply sceptical that the technology to enable such an ambitious defence system exists at present. He points to Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which became known by critics, with their tongues in their cheeks, as “Star Wars”, which never really got any further than the drawing board.
It did, however, have the effect of signalling to the Kremlin and the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, that the sky would be the limit in terms of US willingness to push the boundaries of defence spending. Powell believes it significantly changed the calculations when it came to the feasibility of continuing the nuclear arms race and may have been responsible for the end of the cold war.
Incidentally, the US president’s funding bill scraped through the House of Representatives with 215 votes for and 214 against. In addition to setting aside funds for Golden Dome, the bill, which in its current form adds trillions of dollars to the US debt, has been described by Democrat critics as a “tax scam”. A statement from Democrat leaders said: “This fight is just beginning, and House Democrats will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure that the GOP Tax Scam is buried deep in the ground, never to rise again.”
But how much stomach do the Democrats have for the fight? They’ve had a pretty terrible few months since the election. Their approval rating in March was at 29%, the worst since polling began in 1992. Fernando Pizarro, a lecturer in journalism at City St Georges, University of London, who has several Emmys under his belt for his work on US politics, has cast his eye over some of the leading Democrats who he thinks will spearhead the opposition to the Republicans over the next few years and identifies a few players who could vie for the presidential nomination in 2028.
Meanwhile, after 11 weeks of Israeli blockade of aid to the people of Gaza, limited deliveries have now recommenced in the face of pressure from both the US and increasingly outspoken interventions from the likes of the UK, France and Canada.
But despite reports that up to 100 trucks are now being allowed into the Gaza Strip, human rights agencies and aid organisations have said that there is a desperate threat of widespread starvation unless the amount of food, fuel and medicine getting through increases exponentially. And fast.
There is talk of a US-administered programme, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which could be up and running by the end of May and could accelerate the delivery of vital supplies to the civilian population while ensuring it does not does not get into the hands of militants or black marketeers.
But this scheme has its critics, write Sarah Schiffling and Liz Breen, experts in humanitarian logistics and health service operations at Hanken School of Economics and the University of Bradford respectively. They point to a number of flaws, including the plan to concentrate the secure distribution points in southern and central Gaza, forcing large numbers of people to travel considerable distances for supplies.
The GHF plan also calls for aid distribution to be coordinated with the Israel Defense Forces, which humanitarian organisations says is a “humanitarian cover for a military strategy of control and dispossession”.
Schiffling and Breen point out that humanitarian organisations have 160,000 pallets of supplies and almost 9,000 aid trucks ready to be dispatched across the border “as soon as Israel allows it”. Whether Israel will allow it is, of course, another question entirely.
RUGBY The Highlanders are determined to come away with points when they visit the Crusaders' 22 in tonight's Super Rugby Pacific showdown in Christchurch More...
BUSINESS Rents have dropped around the country for a second month More...
