 "Despite Trump's mediation, Ukraine & Russia stand poles apart on peace conditions")
Even as US President Donald Trump has arm-twisted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into accepting Russian terms for a partial ceasefire, the two warring sides stand poles apart in their objectives and expectations about how to end the ongoing conflict.
After a telephonic conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy, the countries announced on Wednesday that Ukraine has accepted a 30-day pause on attacks on energy infrastructure. After rejecting the US-backed, Ukraine-endorsed offer for a complete 30-day ceasefire, Putin had agreed to a 30-day pause on attacks on energy infrastructure the previous day. The modalities of the pause are yet to be worked out.
However, neither Ukraine nor Russia favour such a pause. At the Raisina Dialogue 2025, organised by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in partnership with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), delegates from the two countries outlined the position of their countries that stands poles apart.
While Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said in an interview with Firstpost that the country wants unconditional ceasefire, Russian delegates, including an influential member of parliament from Putin’s party, said Russia is not interested in a ceasefire but in “lasting peace” that brings security guarantees for the country and the Russian public wants the country to win the war and Putin is in line with such a public opinion.
Following the US-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia earlier this month, Trump and his top officials urged Putin to accept the unconditional ceasefire proposal but he rejected the call and laid down his maximalist demands for a ceasefire. Eventually, he convinced Trump to force Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire that favours Russia — the initial unconditional ceasefire proposal has been toned down to a ceasefire limited to just energy infrastructure that favours Russia as it prevents Ukraine from keep battering Russian oil and gas facilities with long-range drones.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsUkraine’s red lines & Putin’s unrelenting objectives
Speaking at Firstpost’s IdeasPod during the Raisina Dialogue, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sybiha said that the country preferred an unconditional ceasefire. A day after the interview, Trump arm-twisted Zelenskyy into accepting a conditional ceasefire.
Sybiha further said that Ukraine wants to end the war this year and reach a lasting ceasefire, but will not compromise on some fundamentals, such as the territorial integrity of the country and a Versailles-like treaty that puts restrictions on Ukraine’s military. The Ukrainian red lines, which Trump is unlikely to respect, are at direct odds with Russia’s objectives with the negotiations.
Listing the red lines, Sybiha told Firstpost, “Ukraine will never accept restriction on the military. There is no possibility to restrict our choice to become a member of any union or any alliance. There will be no compromises of our territorial integrity and sovereignty. Ukraine will never recognise any part of territories occupied by Russians. These things are crucial and fundamental in our peace process.”
Putin has, however, conveyed to Trump and the world that his maximalist demands don’t just persist but have expanded over time. In a speech shortly after the temporary truce proposal emerged in the talks in Saudi Arabia, Putin said that certain “nuances” need to be addressed in such a truce. Then he went on to list his demands: Ukrainian troops in Kursk would not be allowed to withdraw, they would need to surrender; Ukraine would not receive weapons during the ceasefire; and Ukraine would neither mobilise or train soldiers during the ceasefire.
In a reference to longstanding demands, Putin further said that he wanted such terms that lead to “long-term peace” and “eliminate the original causes of this crisis”. What he meant was that Ukraine should abandon the desire to join Nato, abandon international military cooperation, enshrine neutrality in its constitution, limit the size of its military, recognise the territory under Russian occupation as Russian sovereign territory, and include Russian language in formal business. Critics of the demands have said that acceptance would mean Ukraine ceding sovereignty to Russia.
Russia’s war wouldn’t end with ceasefire
Russian delegates at the Raisina Dialogue further elaborated the Russian position. Vyacheslav Nikonov, a member of Russian parliament from Putin’s party, said in a discussion on the evolving US-Russia relationship under Trump that Putin does not simply want a ceasefire but “security guarantees in Russia” — peddling the Russian narrative that the invasion was borne out of necessity of addressing the purported Western expansionism targeting Russia.
Nikonov said, “He doesn’t want ceasefire in itself because what we need is lasting peace and security guarantees for Russia. The America First approach is not just of President Trump. It’s also Russia approach — Russia First. That means there are several details of the ceasefire for us. I think the most important issues are the verification and how they [Ukrainians] are going to spend these 30 days. What of American armed supplies? I don’t think with that would be something which we will support.”
Nikonov went on to say that even as Putin is now engaged in talks, the goal remains victory over Ukraine. He said that the Russian public opinion favours winning the war and Putin is in tune with that opinion.
ALSO READ: As Putin dictates terms, Kremlin says Russia remains 'cautiously optimistic' in peace talks
Elaborating what critics of Trump-Putin bonhomie in the West have also said, Anastasia Likhacheva, an international relations scholar at Russia’s HSE University, said that ongoing negotiations to end the war are not the endgame for a Russia but a tool to extract more security guarantees from the West.
Explaining that the war for Russia would not end with the ceasefire, Likhacheva said, “No matter how these negotiations end up, even if it’s world’s biggest success in the negotiation tactics ever that the world has ever seen, we will get about 1,000 kilometres of bleeding border. We have hundreds of thousands of weapons circulating over these 1,000 kilometres. We have our neighbour Europe that declared anti-Russian weaponisation as the key to stay united and as the pillar for European integration. So, deconflicting the globe will be on demand. If these negotiations will be able to provide this, it will be big success.”
Those in the Trump’s orbit have long claimed that the embrace of Putin and the antagonisation of European allies is essential to reorient US resources to tackle the rising China in the Indo-Pacific sector. Critics have said the approach is flawed as Russia and China are essentially in an alliance and have to be tackled as one unit and the notion of driving a wedge between them is a fantasy. Nikonov, the Russian MP from Putin’s party United Russia, also rejected the chance of a split.
Nikonov said that there “is no chance” that the United States could break the China-Russia partnership.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
