An anticipated US-Russia meeting may be one of the most critical peace negotiations since the end of World War II, likely to shape European security and strategic direction for decades to come.
The Ukraine war has threatened the security of Europe, posing a military threat to the continent – the first of its kind in 80 years. Europe anticipates the peace agreement will not only provide security for Ukraine, a candidate for European Union membership, but also reinforce the stability of the continent at a time of political and strategic fragility.
But Europe fears US President Donald Trump will broker a hasty deal with Russia, positioning himself as a global peacemaker. Europe and Ukraine are also divided over the proposed 30-day ceasefire plan, which stipulates that the warring parties should engage in negotiations to secure a long-term resolution answering both sides’ demands. Critics perceive this as a concession to Moscow, forcing Kyiv into capitulation, while supporters hail it as a vital step towards peace for a nation on the brink of devastation.
The White House and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have expressed optimism, deeming the plan feasible.
Trump said US envoys met in Moscow with their Russian counterparts, with Rubio deeming US-Russia talks in Moscow and Jeddah promising and voicing hopes for speedy, tangible progress. Rubio said that Washington would closely assess Russia’s stance in an upcoming meeting, after which Trump would chart the next phase of the peace initiative.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has endorsed Trump’s proposal, yet he insists that fundamental issues must be discussed with the US and stipulates that the ceasefire must pave the way to a lasting peace that resolves the “root causes” of the conflict.
Two weeks after a tense Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine retrieved constructive dialogue dynamics with Washington. Its approval of the 30-day plan opened the door to the resumption of American arms shipments and reestablished intelligence-sharing between Washington and Kyiv.
Ukraine’s acceptance of the US peace plan marks what Ahmed Al-Khamisi, professor of Russian culture and literature, describes as a “sharp turning point” in the trajectory of the war.
“For years, Ukraine had refused any ceasefire — until the approval of Trump’s plan,” Al-Khamisi noted. Washington and Moscow lately said that Ukraine was the party opposing peace.
Ukraine’s rejection of a ceasefire was contingent on the withdrawal of Russian forces from the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine, including Crimea. Kyiv also feared that even a temporary truce would benefit Moscow, allowing Russia to replenish its military strength and launch a large-scale offensive that Ukraine might not be able to counter.
During the Jeddah negotiations, Ukraine proposed a partial cessation of hostilities, suggesting a truce limited to air and naval operations, while maintaining ground offensives. However, Kyiv did not receive sufficient guarantees from Washington to ensure that Russia would not exploit the truce to reinforce its own forces. Under intense US pressure, Ukraine ultimately conceded, a move that many in Europe perceive as “hasty”.
Still, as Al-Khamisi points out, the ceasefire “does not fulfill Moscow’s demands”. Putin’s demands last summer were “Ukraine’s full withdrawal from Luhansk and Donetsk, guarantees preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, and the lifting of Western sanctions on Russia,” he added.
Some Russian analysts argue that a long-term ceasefire could prove more advantageous for Ukraine, particularly given Moscow’s territorial gains in Donbas and Kursk.
If both Russia and Ukraine claim to seek peace, what stands in the way? According to Al-Khamisi, one of the biggest obstacles is “the absence of direct communication between Moscow and Kyiv, preventing the development of any formal negotiation framework.” Moreover, “neither side has established a clear negotiating delegation, further complicating the prospect of reaching a settlement.
“Brutal wars necessitate painful concessions, and those have yet to materialise,” Al-Khamisi said. Lifting sanctions on Russia is tied to complex negotiations over frozen Russian assets and compensation demands, which could drag on for months, what is more.
Further clouding the path to peace is the lack of clarity in the American proposal. The US plan consists of only eight paragraphs, offering minimal details, which is unlikely to satisfy Russia, a global power that remains self-sufficient in military capabilities, energy, and food security.
At the London 2025 European Summit, titled “Securing Our Future,” Britain and France proposed the deployment of peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. The initiative was supported by France, Denmark, and even Australia. However, British press reports have revealed that the plan faced considerable opposition from the majority of European nations, which are “grappling with complex political conditions”.
Since the outbreak of the Ukraine war nearly three years ago, governments and ruling parties across Europe have suffered electoral defeats. The primary concern among European nations is “the economic, political, and strategic consequences of the war,” Al-Khamisi pointed out.
“Many centrist governments in Europe fear the rise of the far right in upcoming elections, which discourages them from taking a strong stance against Russia. They worry that right wing parties will exploit their involvement in Ukraine to mobilise voters against them,” Al-Khamisi added.
While Europe’s far right movements have historically maintained an adversarial stance on Russia, they have nonetheless leveraged the war as a political tool, outbidding centrist governments by advocating for disengagement from Ukraine.
Trump’s repeated claims that he could end the war within 24 hours – as he had claimed during his presidential campaign in late 2024 – will not be enough to actually end the conflict. Russia, Ukraine, and Europe demand the treatment of the root causes of the conflict for the restoration of peace – despite the White House’s desire to keep European leaders out of the talks.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 20 March, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: