|
Padmashree Anandhan
15 May 2025 |
Conflict Weekly #280&281, 15 May 2025, Vol6, No.s 19 & 20
An initiative by NIAS-IPRI
In the news
On 15 May, US President Trump expressed his doubts on Ukraine and Russia reaching any agreement until his direct meeting with Russia’s President Putin. On the same day, following the non-participation of Putin, Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy criticised the Russian delegation in Turkiye for the direct talks as “decorative.” Putin’s no-show invited criticism from European leaders, calling it an “old Russian trick” to prolong negotiations and the 30-day ceasefire.
On 11 May, Putin proposed direct peace talks with Ukraine in Istanbul. He said that the aim would be to achieve a lasting resolution and to address the root causes of the war. Although Putin did not respond to a separate call by Ukraine and four key Western allies—France, the UK, Germany, and Poland—for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. In response to the direct talk proposal, Zelenskyy emphasized that a full and reliable ceasefire must come first. He urged Russia to confirm a ceasefire beginning 12 May, as a clear condition for any negotiations to proceed.
On 11 May, Trump announced that he would continue to help end the war in Ukraine, calling it a "never ending bloodbath" and hinting at major developments ahead. He described the coming days as a “BIG week” and suggested a “potentially great day for Russia and Ukraine.”
On 10 May, during the meeting organised by Ukraine in Kyiv, leaders from the UK, France, Germany, and Poland reaffirmed their strong support, highlighting the unity between European and US allies. The meeting ended in an agreement to impose heavy sanctions on Russia unless Moscow agrees to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged Putin to demonstrate seriousness about peace by extending the three-day ceasefire into a full, unconditional pause in hostilities. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed optimism, saying the ceasefire proposal gives "a small chance" to end the war, with the US now backing the plan.
Issues at large
First, the search for a ceasefire. In April, Russia announced a unilateral 30-hour Easter ceasefire that was agreed by Ukraine but resulted in an exchange of violation accusations. Later, Trump and Putin agreed to a 30-day pause on attacks targeting energy infrastructure. This also failed as Ukraine and Russia accused of breaching the agreement with the exchange of drone strikes and infrastructure damage. The latest being Putin’s three-day ceasefire marking 80 years of the Soviet Union's victory in World War II. Following this, Ukraine and the EU have strongly pushed for an immediate and 30-day halt to hostilities, eventually leading to a long-lasting ceasefire. However, the complexities in coming together to discuss and negotiate the conditions continue.
Second, contradictory positions of Ukraine and Russia on ceasefire. Ukraine's conditions include a full withdrawal of Russian forces from all illegally annexed regions in the southeast. It calls for the return of thousands of deported civilians and prisoners of war, and staunch security guarantees to deter future aggression. While Russia mandates legal recognition of the captured territory, including Crimea. It demands the withdrawal of Ukraine’s forces from these territories and a formal pledge that Ukraine will not join NATO or form any military alliances perceived as hostile to Russia. It also argues that a temporary or tactical ceasefire without these concessions would help Ukraine rearm and prolong the conflict. Putin has also rejected recent Western-mediated proposals for short-term truces and has instead called for a long-term agreement, which seems too far.
Third, a united Europe and the US call for a ceasefire. Earlier, the EU and the US had diverging approaches to resolving the war. The EU’s focus remained on combined transatlantic negotiations, along with military aid and security guarantees, with the larger European security concern in the background. While the US engaged in more direct talks with Russia, delaying military aid to Ukraine over a mineral deal with a more transactional stance. However, the recent meeting and calls between the European and US officials show a slight shift or adapted approach to strive for a temporary ceasefire on a primary basis. Although there is more unity than before among the European leaders to ensure in achieving a 30-day ceasefire and ensuring long term security guarantees for Ukraine.
In perspective
First, ambitious preconditions and impossible direct talks. The exclusive conditions placed by Ukraine and Russia are the first hindrance to beginning negotiations. Such ambitious demands only lead to more distrust in settling for common conditions, thereby prolonging the negotiation process. This has also led to more mediators, such as Turkey and China, to help in mediation. The lack of trust, high-end demands, and ceasefire breaches combined have resulted in ceasefire efforts being more fragmented. This reflects the larger deadlock and mismatch in diplomatic efforts and battlefield scenarios.
Second, Trump’s limitations as a mediator. Trump's claims to end the war in 24 hours of presidency have so far failed to broker a temporary ceasefire. Recent efforts to mediate a 30-day ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia have been delayed, with Russia rejecting the US-backed proposal as inadequate for addressing its demands.
