Ukraine agrees to US' 30-day ceasefire proposal with Russia. But what does it mean?

The United States says  Ukraine has agreed to its proposal  for a 30-day ceasefire with Russia following three years of war.

The announcement followed peace talks in Saudi Arabia, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy travelled on March 10, and is a remarkable turn of events.  The ball is now in Russia’s court  in terms of whether it accepts the ceasefire proposal.

Zelenskyy’s recent shouting match with US President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance in the White House, at a surface level, could not have gone much worse from the Ukrainian leader’s perspective. Both Trump and Vance  subjected Zelenskyy  to scathing attacks before their meeting abruptly ended.

The fallout from the meeting initially seemed even worse than the meeting itself. On March 3, Trump  paused material military aid  to Ukraine, and two days later, the US  stopped sharing intelligence with Ukrainians . The decision on intelligence has since been reversed following Ukraine’s agreement with the ceasefire proposal.

Trump’s focus on Ukraine

When campaigning for president, Trump promised to  end the war  in 24 hours. After he won a second term, Trump has  appeared disinterested  and even  antagonistic towards Russia  at times.

The domestic turmoil  that’s been fuelled by many of his policies, however, has seemingly caused him to seek a win in international affairs. Enter Ukraine.

Nonetheless, Trump’s  increased focus  on Ukraine in recent weeks, including his Oval Office attack on Zelenskyy, has required the Ukrainian leader to adapt. He’s therefore been making moves to shore up support for Ukraine in a world devoid of American leadership.

Trump’s focus on Ukraine stems from several aspects of his world view.

First, while theories of Trump being a  Russian agent  may be overblown, he does seem fixated on Russian President Vladimir Putin. This fixation likely stems from the fact that Putin,  much like Trump , views the world in a  transactional manner . Putin is someone with whom Trump, who broadcasts himself as a deal-maker, can reach an agreement.

Second, the Russia-Ukraine conflict aligns with Trump’s world view that the US provides too much and the rest of the world too little to secure international stability. This perspective is particularly the case with Europe, whom Trump views as  “free-loading ” via American security guarantees.

Third, Trump views Ukraine as having the potential to assist American industry and defence, just not in a military manner. The  rare earth minerals  that Ukraine possesses have significant economic and military implications, and the  market is dominated  by the state Trump and many others view as America’s chief rival: China.

Fourth and finally, Trump correctly views the US as having leverage over Ukraine. American military aid has largely  allowed Ukraine to fight a protracted war  against a much larger enemy. While the degradation of Russia’s military and economy  benefits the US , Trump’s focus on short-term objectives largely overlooks this point.

Did Zelenskyy outmaneuver the US?

Trump, however, did not account for Zelenskyy’s strength of character. While Trump is seeking to use Ukraine for his own advantage, Zelenskyy remains focused on Ukraine’s interests — and not on America first. The emerging  personality conflict  between both men made the chaotic Oval Office meeting almost inevitable.

Given  Trump’s rhetoric  towards Zelenskyy in the lead-up to that meeting, it’s curious the Ukrainian leader agreed to the meeting at all. But Zelenskyy himself reportedly pushed for the meeting, and even had  French President Emmanuel Macron intervene  on his behalf.

American support for Ukraine was disappearing before the tumultuous meeting. There has been  no new aid  for Ukraine since Trump assumed the presidency. For Ukraine to survive, it needs a new patron.

Zelenskyy has taken risks during the conflict,  not all of which  have worked in his or Ukraine’s favour. Those risks, however, have always been calculated. His attempt to bolster support for Ukraine among its non-American allies following the contentious White House meeting might be an example of this type of calculation.

Europe to the rescue

In the aftermath of the meeting, the international community has rallied around Ukraine. Most important, however, has been  the European response .

For all the problems in Trump’s approach, he is correct that the European response to Russia’s invasion has  left a lot to be desired  from Ukraine’s perspective. While Europe has provided  more financial assistance  to Ukraine than the US, it has largely occurred in spurts and only after American leadership on the issue.

France and the United Kingdom have emerged as Ukraine’s biggest backers in Europe. This is not new, as  both   countries  have been among Ukraine’s most vocal supporters over the last few years. What Ukraine needs, however, is for that vocal support to turn into action.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced an 800 billion euro program for European Union members to bolster their defence capabilities soon after Zelenskyy met with European leaders in London in early March. In explaining her rational,  von der Leyen stated :

“With this equipment, member states can massively step up their support to Ukraine… This approach of joint procurement will also reduce costs, reduce fragmentation, increase interoperability and strengthen our defence industrial base.”

EU is key

Though not perfect, the renewed support from the EU and the UK may allow Ukraine to continue fighting as Russia’s declining economy hinders  Putin’s war effort .

In the aftermath of the Oval Office showdown with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy has done what he can to  repair Ukraine’s relationship  with the US and satiate Trump’s ego, but tension remains. From Ukraine’s perspective, it needs a new partner in its war against Russia, and the EU can serve that purpose.

The US may be the country pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine, but it’s Europe that will play the most vital role in Ukraine’s ability to win the war if it endures.

James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

This article is republished from  The Conversation  under a Creative Commons license. Read the  original article .