In a recent turn of events in the ongoing Ukraine conflict, former U.S. President Donald Trump conducted a series of high-profile phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, creating waves in the international community. Trump’s discussions, which focused on negotiating a possible ceasefire, have been met with skepticism and criticism as analysis suggests that Putin has emerged as the predominant victor.
Thursday, March 18, 2025, marked a pivotal moment when Trump had a 90-minute conversation with Putin. According to defense expert Anthony Glees, this call was tantamount to a "game, set, and match" victory for the Russian leader, with Glees remarking that Putin was likely "laughing his backside off" as he reviewed the outcomes of their discussions. The conversation seemed largely unproductive, and critics pointed out that Trump’s approach effectively handed Putin a "blank cheque" deal. Trump and Ukraine aimed for a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire, yet what transpired was far less than anticipated.
Glees remarked on the irony of Trump negotiating peace in a context that has potentially strengthened Putin internationally. He noted that Trump has effectively restored Putin to the world stage, diminishing his status as a global pariah. In a string of public statements, Glees underscored, "The phone-call fiasco yesterday not only weakens Trump but it also puts Starmer and the European Coalition of the Willing on the spot." Moreover, analysts believe Trump’s concessions could have far-reaching implications not only for Ukraine but also for NATO and global stability.
Days later, on March 19, Trump held a reported "very good" one-hour conversation with Zelenskyy. The call was a follow-up to his dialogue with Putin, where discussions focused on aligning the requests and needs of both Russia and Ukraine. In a post shared on Truth Social, Trump claimed, "We are very much on track," echoing notions of coordinated efforts toward peace. However, skepticism persists around the nature of these efforts.
Zelenskyy expressed optimism during the conversation, indicating Ukraine's readiness to accept a proposal for a limited ceasefire, particularly regarding civilian infrastructure. The Ukrainian President stated, "I stressed that Ukrainians want peace, which is why Ukraine accepted the proposal for an unconditional ceasefire." The conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy allegedly covered key issues such as the return of Ukrainian POWs and strengthening air defenses.
Nevertheless, analysts are cautious. Trump's recent concessions to Russia, including discussions about significant economic deals between the U.S. and Russia, raise concerns about his ongoing rapport with Putin. Glees suggested Trump's ego could be a vulnerability, making him susceptible to further manipulation by Putin. As the conversation progressed, Trump seemed unaware of the potential long-term ramifications of the decisions being made during these talks.
On the ground, reactions to these negotiations have been mixed. Political commentators and experts have been vocal about the apparent lack of substantial concessions made by Putin during the diplomacy. Reportedly, the only notable concession made by the Kremlin was a promise not to murder prisoners of war, leading to sharp criticisms around the fundamental tenets of international law and expectations of sovereign negotiations.
Notably, Trump faced blowback for his exaggerated claims regarding the situation in the Kursk region, where he had stated that thousands of Ukrainian soldiers were surrounded. This assertion was deemed misleading, further casting doubt on his grasp of the situation. Instead of securing a 30-day ceasefire, the Kremlin dismissed higher demands, agreeing only to limited pauses in attacks on energy infrastructure, a point that had been suggested during previous negotiations led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The frustrating outcome of these negotiations illustrates the complexities of international diplomacy today. Despite Zelenskyy's insistence on maintaining a positive outlook and commitment to further talks, the tangible results have often fallen short of expectations. President Zelenskyy emphasized a belief that lasting peace could be achieved under U.S. leadership but tempered that sentiment with the acknowledgment of the difficulties posed by previous negotiations with Russia.
As Trump’s call with Zelenskyy suggests a continuity of contact between the U.S. and Ukraine, the ongoing humanitarian concerns remain pressing. Ukrainian children taken by Russian forces and the status of POWs continue to haunt diplomatic discussions, with calls for immediate action growing louder amidst the muted progress of peace talks.
In summary, Trump’s latest dealings with both Russia and Ukraine signify a pivotal moment in understanding the shifting dynamics of international relations in conflict zones. Observers are left to ponder the effectiveness of diplomatic communication in a climate fraught with contradictory assertions and high stakes.
Going forward, there remains the question of what tangible agreements can be achieved as meeting schedules unfold—particularly as both Ukrainian and American teams are slated to meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days to pursue steps toward greater peace and stability. The complicated web of negotiations involving the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia continues to illustrate the intricate balance necessary to confront ongoing global tensions.
