US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone on 18 March and agreed on a limited ceasefire.

Europe is most upset that Trump should have spoken to Putin, considered a pariah by it.

The agreement between Trump and Putin is likely to lead to a permanent end to the war despite misgivings and opposition from Ukraine and its staunch supporters in Europe.

The background to the talks

As presidential candidate, Trump repeatedly made two points about the ongoing war in Ukraine.

First, were he president then, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine as it did on 24 February 2022.

Second, once elected, he would bring an end to the war in “24 hours.”

Looking back, it’s clear that former US president Joe Biden shares some responsibility for the war, as he chose “public diplomacy” over traditional or classical diplomacy, and rejected Putin’s demand for security guarantees in December 2021—a time when Ukraine was pushing to join NATO, which Moscow sees as a serious threat to its national security.

The Western media tended to ridicule Trump for not having brought in a ceasefire “within 24 hours.”

They forget the enormous effort by themselves and European NATO governments to block a ceasefire, even after it was clear their plan to cripple Russia’s oil- and gas-based economy had failed.

They harbored dreams of Putin falling from power and Russia—the largest state in the world—being dismantled.

They argued, with little evidence, that unless the Russian army was driven out of Ukraine, Putin would attack neighboring states like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and more.

Trump did not proceed in this matter with his usual haste.

He laid the groundwork for his conversation by having his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, meet his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Riyadh on 18 February.

They discussed Ukraine in the context of resetting their bilateral relations.

They agreed that the two Presidents should speak, without fixing a date.

The Western media and European governments were aghast that Moscow and Washington would discuss Ukraine without Europe, and even Ukraine, at the table.

This shows how disconnected European governments are from geopolitical realities.

Russia was not going to talk to the US about Ukraine unless relations with Washington were repaired.

Moreover, Russia would not have agreed to include Ukraine or European powers like London, Paris, and Berlin.

These powers had organized the charade of a “peace summit” in Birkenstock (Switzerland) in June 2024.

They naively imagined they could secure a ceasefire and peace settlement without involving Russia, which was not even invited to the summit—rendering it sterile.

Washington and Moscow followed up the Riyadh talks with more discussions before the two Presidents spoke by phone on 18 March—a month after their foreign ministers met.

What happened at the talks?

Frankly, we do not know. We must go by what the Kremlin and the White House have chosen to tell us.

We have as yet no “deep throats.”

The White House readout:

“Today, President Trump and President Putin spoke about the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace. They also stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the US and Russia. The blood and treasure that both Ukraine and Russia have been spending in this war would be better spent on the needs of their people…The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace. These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.

Kremlin’s statement:

The leaders continued a detailed and frank exchange of views on the situation around Ukraine. Vladimir Putin expressed gratitude to Donald Trump for his desire to help achieve the noble goal of ending hostilities and human losses.

Having confirmed his fundamental commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, the Russian President declared his readiness to thoroughly work out possible ways to resolve the conflict together with his American partners, which should be comprehensive, sustainable and long-term. And, of course, to take into account the absolute need to eliminate the root causes of the crisis and ensure Russia’s legitimate interests in the field of security…During the conversation, Donald Trump put forward a proposal for the parties to the conflict to mutually refrain from attacks on energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days. Vladimir Putin responded positively to this initiative and immediately gave the Russian military the appropriate command.

In short, there was agreement on a limited ceasefire with both sides agreeing to talk more on related matters to arrive at a full ceasefire and lasting peace.

The reader will do well to note that the White House said that the ceasefire would apply to “energy and infrastructure,” whereas the Kremlin confined it to “energy infrastructure.”

Response from Ukraine and Europe

Ukraine ostensibly accepted the 30-day limited ceasefire but continued urging Europe for more military and financial support, as Zelensky insists Putin cannot be trusted to keep his word.

Immediately after the Putin-Trump talks, Russia and Ukraine attacked each other’s energy infrastructure, each blaming the other for firing first. Despite this, the limited ceasefire is now holding.

European powers have been calling for rearmament to deter potential Russian aggression, arguing that Trump cannot be relied upon to uphold Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

That article says that an armed attack against one or more NATO members in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and members will respond as they deem necessary, including the use of armed force.

UK Prime Minister Starmer and French President Macron have led the charge. Starmer signed a 1,000-year mutual defense treaty with Ukraine, contradicting Lord Palmerston’s famous dictum that Britain has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests.

Macron initially suggested French troops could fight Russia, but now speaks of a “coalition of the willing”—a phrase first used by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer during the 2003 Iraq war and revived by Starmer—to deter Putin from breaking the ceasefire.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed an €800 billion rearmament plan. Member states can exceed the 3% budget deficit cap to raise €650 billion, while the Commission would borrow €150 billion from markets to boost arms production.

It’s unclear if the €800 billion plan will take off soon. Meanwhile, a separate €40 billion aid proposal for Ukraine by new EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas of Estonia has collapsed.

What next?

Predicting outcomes in international relations is always risky. Still, it seems likely that Trump will secure a ceasefire that could hold for as long as he remains in office.

So far, Putin has rejected any NATO presence in Ukraine to monitor the ceasefire. He might reconsider if the EU lifts sanctions and unfreezes the Russian Central Bank’s assets, most of which are held in Brussels.

But will the EU go that far?

It cannot be ruled out that Ukraine, under pressure from Washington, agrees to a ceasefire even without the “coalition of the willing” sending its boots on the ground. 

Without US backup, the coalition might not even send the boots.

Then there’s the staggering $524 billion bill for Ukraine’s reconstruction, according to the World Bank.

Zelensky’s call for Russia to foot the bill is unrealistic.

A ceasefire followed by negotiations is in everyone’s interest.

Europe should stop demonizing Putin—good diplomacy requires engaging with those in power, not vilifying them.

Europe must, in its own interest, dismount from the high horse and negotiate a modus vivendi with Moscow.

It is in Moscow’s interest to have sanctions lifted and to resume supplying energy to Europe.

However, adopting such a rational approach seems unlikely at the moment.

The military-industrial complex in Europe stands to profit substantially. London and Paris are contemplating extending a nuclear umbrella over Europe, although their combined nuclear arsenals are significantly inferior to Russia’s.

Delegations from the US, Russia, and Ukraine are currently in Riyadh, with the latter two not sharing a table. The US delegation is engaging with each separately.

The primary focus is on establishing a ceasefire in the Black Sea. Eventually, the issues raised by Russia regarding Ukraine’s formal renunciation of its NATO membership aspirations, among other concerns, will need to be addressed.