|
Abhiruchi Chowdhury
5 May 2025 |
Conflict Weekly #278&279, 1 May 2025, Vol 6, Nos 17 & 18
An initiative by NIAS-IPRI
The following note was published as a part of IPRI Conflict Weekly
In the news
On 30 April, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement to split the gains incurred by selling mineral and energy resources of the latter in future. As part of the deal, an “investment fund” would be formulated, which would facilitate US projects on the development of Ukraine’s mineral wealth.
On 29 April, Russia launched drone assaults on Kharkiv and Dnipro, injuring around 38 people and killing one. On the same day, two people were killed and three others were injured in Ukraine’s drone attack on Belgorod, Russia.
On 28 April, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced a “unilateral three-day ceasefire” from 8 May. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy termed Putin’s announcement as “another attempt at manipulation.”
On 26 April, US President Donald Trump and Zelenskyy held a discussion in the Vatican. Zelenskyy, on social media, expressed gratitude for Trump and called it a “good meeting.” He wrote: “Very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results.”
On the same day, after the Russian missile and drone attacks on Kyiv, Trump questioned Putin’s intentions regarding the peace deal. He questioned: “It makes me think, that he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along and has to be dealt differently, through banking or secondary sections?”
Issues at large
First, the three earlier failed ceasefires. On 19 April, on Easter day, Putin announced to cease in attacks on Ukraine for 30 hours, highlighting “humanitarian consideration.” However, Zelenskyy claimed that Russia violated the ceasefire roughly 3000 times. He alleged that Russia carried out intense shelling on Pokrovsk, a city in the eastern part of the country. Russia asserted that Ukraine carried out attacks during the truce using US weapons. On 25 March, the White House announced another ceasefire where Russia and Ukraine agreed to cease attacks against each other’s energy installations and in the Black Sea. A few hours later, Russia accused Ukraine of carrying out a drone strike on the power installations in Bryansk and Kursk. Ukraine, however, rejected Moscow’s accusations. On 18 March, Trump and Putin held a telephone conversation, with Russia agreeing to cease attacks against Ukraine’s energy installations. However, Zelenskyy accused Russia of breaching the ceasefire by attacking a hospital in Sumy.
Second, the continuing Russian offence against Ukraine amidst peace talks. On 24 April, Russia launched drone missile assaults on Kyiv, killing 12 people and injuring 30 others. This was one of the most lethal assaults on Kyiv since 8 July 2024. There was another attack on Zaporizhzhia, which injured 38 people. After the easter ceasefire came to an end on 21 April, Ukraine accused Russia of hurling drone and missile attacks in Mykolaiv and Kherson.
Third, the difference in positions of the EU, Russia and the US on the peace proposal. Trump had claimed that a major part of the peace proposal had been agreed upon. As per Reuters, the US’ peace proposal has agreed to recognise Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as parts of Russia. However, in Ukraine and Europe’s proposal, a ceasefire is suggested as a precondition for discussions on the future of the Russian-annexed territories. Further, the US’ peace proposal puts the onus of Ukraine’s security on the “coalition of willing.” On the contrary, Europe’s peace proposal demands that the US provide a firm security commitment to Ukraine that must be on the lines of Article 5 of the NATO charter.
Fourth, the different interests in the minerals deal. Trump had continually pushed for signing the minerals deal to receive monetary compensation for the financial assistance of about USD 375.8 billion, which the US provided to Ukraine since the war began. Additionally, access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals is seen as part of Trump’s vision to bring the US back to the centre of technological advancement. Ukraine, on the other hand, saw the minerals deal as an opportunity to gain “security guarantees” from the US, to prevent future attacks from Russia.
In perspective
First, Ukraine was unable to get what it had initially desired to get from the minerals deal. The lack of security guarantees from the US means that Trump has been able to successfully push his agenda of receiving monetary benefit sometime in future from Ukraine without overtly confronting Moscow. The minerals deal is a defeat for Ukraine and Europe’s anti-Russia agenda.
Second, Trump’s practical approach towards Russia’s continued offence against Ukraine. Although Trump did condemn Russia’s attacks on Ukraine amid negotiations of peace deal, he did not apply any further sanctions on Russia. Trump realised that applying any further sanctions would prolong the duration of the war and diminish the chances of achieving a peace deal.
