OPINION: Russia’s Self-Serving Counterproposal Costs Moscow Nothing

The world held its breath as talks between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump extended well into their second hour. Ever since Trump took office, his administration’s willingness to negotiate over Ukraine without Ukraine’s direct involvement has been a cause for deep concern. Now, with the latest round of discussions concluded, it is time to assess what has been achieved – and at what cost.

On the surface, Russia has agreed to a ceasefire. Yet it is not an all-encompassing one, such as the ceasefire the US pressured Ukraine into accepting. The aggressor has only agreed to cease attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure – a temporary and self-serving concession. Russia’s missile barrages against Ukrainian power plants were a calculated effort to terrorize civilians, mainly during winter months. With warmer weather ahead, there is little strategic gain in continuing these attacks. In contrast, Ukraine’s strikes on Russian oil refineries have real military significance, disrupting supply lines and weakening Russia’s war machine. This is not an equal exchange, it is a concession that costs Moscow nothing.

Another key topic of the call was security in the Black Sea, with Putin raising concerns over Ukrainian drone strikes on the Russian fleet and deep into Russian territory. The long-range maritime Magura drones and ariel Beavers – which I wrote about earlier this week – have clearly rattled the Kremlin, making their impact undeniable.

Other Topics of Interest

Prisoner Swap Promised Following Trump-Putin Call Goes Ahead

Ukraine secured the return of 175 of its POWs, including 22 outside of exchanges, as part of a prisoner swap following “the call.”

Putin’s demands include halting military aid to Ukraine and freezing intelligence-sharing arrangements. The Trump administration has already set this precedent by pressuring Kyiv into negotiations, and Putin has taken note. If these demands are met, Ukraine will be left vulnerable – stripped of both manpower and weapons needed to defend itself from future attacks. This is not a path to sustainable peace but a blueprint for capitulation.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky was swift to react. As he addressed reporters, air raid sirens wailed across Kyiv – a grim reminder of Putin’s cynicism and his treacherous nature.

Meanwhile, Europe’s response remains measured. The UK’s Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has already “welcomed the progress President Trump has made towards a ceasefire,” yet one can only imagine the discontent simmering behind closed doors in European capitals. Putin’s rhetoric about considering Russia’s “legitimate security guarantees” is nothing new – it is the same tired justification of opposing NATO’s eastward expansion. After the initial Saudi Arabia negotiations, reports suggested Russia has demanded the withdrawal of NATO troops from the alliance’s eastern flank. Would Donald Trump agree to such a proposal?

Of course, Ukraine is just one piece of the puzzle in Trump’s broader dealings with Moscow. The US is now seemingly willing to rely on Russia to curb nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Is Washington once again entertaining the illusion that Moscow could be an ally against another adversary – in this case Iran? This persistent misjudgment in American foreign policy thinking dates back to Kissinger and Nixon with their China dealings, and history suggests it is a futile pursuit.

One truth must remain unshakable: Ukraine is not a colony. Its fate cannot be decided in its absence. The United States has not fought on Ukraine’s front lines – it is the Ukrainian people who have borne the brunt of this war, defending not only their sovereignty but also the democratic values the West claims to uphold.

During my recent visit to Kyiv, a senior Ukrainian official put it bluntly to me: lasting peace will only come when Russia truly recognizes Ukraine’s sovereignty. A temporary cessation of hostilities will not change that fundamental reality.

The biggest questions remain unanswered. What happens after the 30-day ceasefire, assuming it holds? What becomes of Russian-occupied territories? Is Ukraine’s territorial integrity negotiable? How can a true, sustained peace be achieved? And, most crucially, what is Ukraine’s long-term future? After sacrificing so much, will it be allowed to forge its own path as a free and prosperous European nation? Will it have the right to join alliances that guarantee its security as other Eastern European states have? Or will it be left isolated, its population further diminished by emigration, its reconstruction blocked by the absence of security assurances for investors?

Putin is a seasoned player in the diplomatic arena. The Kremlin’s statement following the call was predictably calculated: “Vladimir Putin expressed gratitude to Donald Trump for his efforts to achieve the noble goal of ending hostilities and human casualties.” But let us not be deceived – Russia could end this war in an instant by withdrawing its forces. The true test of Trump’s diplomacy will be whether he can bring that about. Nothing less will earn him the Nobel Peace Prize he covets so dearly.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com. Follow him on X/Facebook @LordAshcroft. 

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.