📩 Will Vladimir stop?

DEAR READER,

We are back from Easter break, and we have a lot to catch up with.

With the US rushing to seal the deal with Russia (or possibly bail), we are taking a deep dive into what it really means for Ukraine. And as Putin is still bombing Ukrainian cities, Trump might be realising he’s getting played.

As Russia's invasion of Ukraine is in its third year, access to reliable information is crucial for global understanding of the situation on the ground. That’s why we are reaching out for your support as we approach a key milestone in our fundraiser to maintain independent, free press in Central and Eastern Europe — we are just shy of hitting $10,000. Every contribution, no matter the amount, helps us get closer to this goal and ensures we can keep bringing you the stories that matter. You can support our work by clicking the link here.

Enjoy reading this week’s “brief”!

— Giorgi Beroshvili, Editor

Last week, the Trump administration’s efforts to forge a peace deal over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine appeared to shift into high gear. But it wasn’t because negotiations were gaining momentum or that an agreement between Russia and Ukraine was within reach. Rather, it seemed, the administration – and Trump in particular – was getting frustrated with the slow pace and the deep divide between both sides’ positions, making any agreement seem unlikely. As Trump approached the milestone of 100 days in office, he appeared eager to wrap up the negotiation process, one way or another.

This urgency was first signalled by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said that if the two sides failed to agree to the emerging proposal, the US would be willing to “move on”. “It is not our war,” Rubio added. “We didn’t start it.”

Last week, The Telegraph, followed by other sources, leaked a seven-point plan reportedly presented to both sides by the administration. The plan was later published by Reuters. Among its most controversial points was the US agreement to legally recognise Crimea as Russian territory and, de facto, recognise other Russian-occupied areas as under Moscow’s control. The agreement also stipulated that Ukraine would formally abandon its NATO aspirations (though it could continue its EU accession process). It was unclear what concessions, if any, Moscow would make, apart from relinquishing control of small parts of occupied Kharkiv oblast and granting Ukraine safe usage of the Dnipro River. When asked what exactly Russia was conceding, Trump replied: “Stopping the war … stopping [from] taking the whole country – [that’s a] pretty big concession”.

The most critical point for Ukraine – the US’s legal recognition of Crimea as Russian – was immediately rejected by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His rejection led to the cancellation of a high-level summit in London last week. Both Rubio and lead negotiator Steve Witkoff chose not to attend, further fuelling speculation about growing American frustration with the process.

Meanwhile, as these developments unfolded, Russia launched one of its largest missile and drone attacks on Kyiv and other major cities, killing 12 and injuring more than 90. It was a stark display of Vladimir Putin’s brutal cynicism, so much so that even Trump took to Truth Social to post, “Vladimir, STOP!”

These attacks revealed Russia’s blatant disregard for peace efforts and demonstrated that a ceasefire could happen at any time, if the Kremlin genuinely wanted to stop the violence. Unfortunately, Washington still seems not to grasp this. Instead, the White House continues to place blame on both sides. With Zelenskyy’s outright rejection of the US recognition of Crimea, Washington can conveniently point to Kyiv as the spoiler. Though, after the brief exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy during Pope Francis’s funeral, it seems Trump may start seeing Putin as a barrier to peace as well.

It is also important to note that the US plan only includes American recognition of Crimea’s annexation, no other country was mentioned. Still, such a move would be a serious blow to international law and would carry massive geopolitical consequences. First and foremost, it would be a major victory for Putin. Not only would it reward Russia’s aggression, but it would also embolden Putin to go further. Even if a ceasefire were reached (which remains doubtful), Russia’s war machine would continue to grow, threatening not only the rest of Ukraine but possibly even EU/NATO members like the Baltic states and Poland. A deal without accountability effectively gives Russia a free pass for over three years of aggression, which has killed over 13,000 Ukrainian civilians (not to mention military deaths) and destroyed countless lives, families and communities.

Recognizing Crimea would also set a dangerous precedent. It would mark the first time since the Second World War that territorial changes resulting from military aggression are legally recognised. This could open the door for similar actions by other regimes – from a Chinese move on Taiwan to even a US takeover of Greenland.

Ultimately, Trump’s much-promised “24-hour peace deal” – now approaching its 100th day – appears likely to fail. The clearest mistake, obvious to most observers, has been trusting that the Russian regime genuinely wants peace; a miscalculation the White House will find challenging to admit.

The emerging question now is: what comes next?

Late last week, Europe and Ukraine released a counter-proposal aimed at achieving an immediate ceasefire. This plan allows Ukraine to host “friendly foreign forces” and imposes no restrictions on Ukraine’s military capabilities. Importantly, it also demands accountability from Russia, stating that Ukraine must be “fully reconstructed and compensated financially, including through Russian sovereign assets”.

We can be nearly certain that Putin will reject this counter-proposal, leaving two likely paths forward. The first is that negotiations continue. With both proposals now public and on the table, some bridging of the gap might be possible, though unlikely given Russia’s expected rejection of most elements in the European/Ukrainian offer. The second scenario, and more probable from today’s point of view, is just the end of the process. The US administration, frustrated, walks away, citing both sides’ unwillingness to compromise. With the final Biden aid package nearly exhausted and no new US aid on the horizon, Kyiv could soon find itself without critical US support such as ammunition and air defence systems.

This shifts the burden squarely onto Europe and Ukraine. Russia has shown no sign of slowing down. In fact, its domestic military capabilities, bolstered by supplies from North Korea, Iran, and increasingly China, are only ramping up. Europe has begun to speak more assertively and should be commended for standing on the right side of history. But can it now back up its words with actions? Will it be able to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to survive, push Russia back, and at the same time strengthen its own deterrence capabilities along the Eastern flank? As Trump shows signs of walking away, these are certainly now the urgent questions being asked in Brussels.

— Adam Reichardt, Editor in Chief at New Eastern Europe