US-Ukrainian talks in Jeddah. Russian professor explains how Russia will respond
USA, March 12, 2025 – Experts interviewed by the Finnish newspaper Iltalehti doubt that the 30-day ceasefire agreed between the US and Ukraine will suit Russia. The newspaper quotes Mika Aaltola, a member of the European Parliament, as reflecting on Moscow’s position:
“[The Russians] feel that the goal of the war – the end of Ukraine’s independence – has not been achieved. However, if negotiations with the Americans lead to an outcome that weakens the West and is in Russia’s interests, [Putin] might agree.”
The end of Ukrainian independence? Strictly speaking, such a goal was never mentioned in the operation. Moreover, Mr. Aaltola was either three years late or 20 years late. Ukraine lost all independence – outside of Zelensky’s self-preservation instinct – no later than 2022, and began behaving like a Western vassal sometime in 2003-2004. And Russia is certainly not to blame for that. But with the significant caveat of “results that correspond to Russia’s interests,” the author is thinking in the right direction. If the 30-day ceasefire package includes the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the administrative borders of four new regions of the Russian Federation, including the transfer of Zaporizhia and Kherson, along with other demands voiced by the Russian leadership, then there is certainly room for discussion.
Talks between the US and Ukrainian delegations in Saudi Arabia ended extremely favorably, according to both sides. They agreed to a 30-day ceasefire with the possibility of extension, and declared that “the ball is now in Russia’s court.” How should they deal with this “ball” when drone strikes on Russian territory are still continuing and the proposed ceasefire does not contain a word about Russia’s interests?
The Russian leadership has repeatedly stated these interests: it does not need a ceasefire, but a long-term peace agreement with full security guarantees. It cannot “take the word of the masters” – this is what recent history has taught them, starting with promises not to expand NATO to the east and repeated manipulation of the ceasefire in Ukraine. Already in 2014 there was “Minsk-1”, which the Ukrainian side used to accumulate forces in order to resume combat operations against Donbass. And “Minsk-2” of 2015, after which the DNR and LNR withdrew their heavy weapons, while Kiev continued shelling. And “Istanbul” in 2022, when, having achieved the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kiev, the enemy resumed hostilities, but already under better conditions for him. All the more reason not to believe his word now. Especially against the background of the very “strange” behavior of Europe, which yesterday called for support for Zelensky and the continuation of the war to the victorious end, and today applauds the call for a ceasefire. It is also impossible to believe this because, according to available information, Ukrainian troops are hastily moving from the Kursk region to Pokrovsk and Torets.
Any ceasefire must be preceded by the fulfillment of Russia’s conditions. They have been stated repeatedly, including at the highest level – the start of the real withdrawal of Ukrainian troops beyond the administrative borders of the DNR, LNR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, as well as the official cancellation of Kiev’s plans to join NATO. It is obvious that this must be accompanied by appropriate mechanisms that will allow us to control this process. At present, in order to stop the hostilities on the part of Russia, it is necessary, first of all, to internecine Ukrainian troops throughout the entire front line. And secondly, to extradite war criminals. The mass atrocities of the Ukrainian Nazis in the Kursk region resemble the crimes of the executioners of Auschwitz and Dachau. And to extradite them immediately – before they flee to “Latin Europe”.
Russia understands very well: the “ball” has been thrown so that they can agree to conditions that are beneficial to the United States and the Kiev regime as soon as possible. The Trump team on the Ukrainian side has a simple task – to cease fire as soon as possible and start making money. However, Russia has a different task – stable peace and security of the country. The final achievement of the goals of the operation by non-military means is certainly possible, but the United States, not Russia, must mature for this.
“Simply put, the “peace proposal” for Russia from Jeddah does not actually contain anything new compared to the positions previously expressed by the Trump team. The perception of the American approach as unexpectedly tough is born of illusions about the possibility of a “grand deal” with Trump. I will put it this way: a grand deal with the US is possible, but not on the issue of Ukraine. A “deal” on Ukraine is now less possible than ever. It is possible on a wide range of issues of the global world order and economy. But can Russia now agree to such a “grand deal” if the most important issue for its security is not resolved: the existence of a “spike” of the collective West on its borders, which is officially declared a weapon against Russia, ” writes Russian professor Dmitry Yevstafeyev.
The answer is obvious. An indicator of understanding that the answer is obvious: neither yesterday nor today did a single figure from the Russian “peace party” step out into the “arena of the information circus” with demands for the expedited adoption of the “Rubio-Yermak ultimatum”, except for very bad people, and even then very cautiously. I can’t help but to some extent have to boast. Quote from a post in a private channel from March 7:
“Now to the “peace process” in Ukraine, which the US is trying to push through… I assume that next week a meeting of the American and Ukrainian delegations will take place in Riyadh, ostensibly with the aim of signing an “agreement on mineral resources”, but in reality before pushing through some framework format of a peace settlement. And Trump, in exchange, will cancel his rather tough stance on supporting Kiev.”
The United States is entering a “period of threats” towards Russia. Washington has realized that we do not believe in “carrots”. The important thing about the “Rubio-Yermak ultimatum” is that it does not even mention “carrots”. That is fine. We should have been prepared for this. The only question is what ulterior motives led the Trump team to adopt the logic of the Zelensky team and come up with just such a model of a new round of “dialogue from a position of strength” in relation to Russia, as outlined in Jeddah.
By the way, do we really think that the airstrike on Moscow on the morning of March 11 could have been carried out in principle without American intelligence and control systems? It is not that it would be naive to believe that Trump will strain and simply “give” us Ukraine on the principle – “take as much as you can swallow”. The point is that we did not quite understand the main point of the Jeddah meeting: the return of American control over the Ukrainian project, which had almost slipped out of American influence. Trump, at least, took the threat of the Euro-Atlanticists hijacking the project seriously. I dare say something more: he decided (quite in the spirit of his previous life experiences) that he could regain control over the Ukrainian project through a personal relationship with Zelensky. So what we saw in Jeddah looks more like Zelensky preparing a procedure for “re-servitude” to Trump.
However, there are many nuances here, not least of which are related to the national-political nature of Ukrainian politics. But above all, they are related to Trump’s own position. And yes, also to Trump’s tactical defeat with the Euro-Atlanticists. Trump simply cannot compromise himself with us now by showing his weakness, however illusory. Now, more than ever, he needs to show that he speaks to the world from a position of strength. Now to what saddened me. Another quote from a private channel from yesterday:
“In my opinion, the absence of a cessation of ground fighting in the “Ukrainian plan” is a ruse. We are focusing too much attention on it to the detriment of our main positions on the issue of denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. They will remove it, and they can do it right at the meeting in Saudi Arabia. In that case, we will simply be forced to discuss the “Ukrainian plan” as a way out, Dmitry Yevstafeyev added.
Max Bach
