The first real opportunity for a ceasefire in the Ukrainian war in three years has emerged. On March 11, nine-hour negotiations in Saudi Arabia between US and Ukrainian delegations yielded significant progress. Ukraine has agreed to a US-proposed 30-day ceasefire, prompting the United States to resume intelligence-sharing and military aid.
Discussions also touched on humanitarian efforts, including prisoner-of-war exchanges, the release of detained civilians, and the return of displaced Ukrainian children. Now, the global community awaits Russia’s response. Will Vladimir Putin agree to a ceasefire? Conflict analyst Zurab Bendianishvili discusses these and other critical issues in an interview with Front News.
– The recent US-Ukraine negotiations in Saudi Arabia led to an agreement on a 30-day ceasefire. While Ukraine sees this as an opportunity to regroup, the crucial question remains: on whose terms will the ceasefire be established, given that each side has its own demands?
The negotiations indicate a shift in US strategy towards Ukraine. Washington has adopted a more measured and diplomatic approach, carefully considering Ukraine’s conditions and compromises. This is a significant step forward. Additionally, US President Donald Trump has adjusted his rhetoric – he no longer portrays Putin as holding all the leverage.
Russia does not appear to be in a position to dictate terms for ending the war. Instead, Putin’s goal remains to weaken Ukraine’s military support while solidifying control over the four Ukrainian regions that Russia has unilaterally declared as its own. Trump’s evolving stance suggests that his administration is not naïve about Russia’s tactics. Initially, there were concerns that Trump might pressure Ukraine further, but now, the focus is shifting toward Russia, which is a positive development. However, I remain skeptical that Putin will make any real concessions or genuinely seek a ceasefire.
– What has prompted Trump and the US to shift their rhetoric so dramatically? Has Trump realized that Putin is merely stalling and has no real intention to negotiate?
It is possible that Trump harbors deep skepticism about Putin. While he may present a different narrative publicly to maintain leverage, behind the scenes, he likely understands the reality. A key factor influencing this shift is Russia’s growing alignment with China and Iran, as demonstrated by their recent joint military exercises. Trump aims to leverage Russia against China, but deceiving experienced FSB operatives is not a simple task.
Russia, in turn, is playing a strategic game. It knows that any agreement Ukraine reaches will also require Russian acceptance. Putin is likely to prolong negotiations to maximize military gains, as evidenced by Ukraine’s recent drone strikes on Moscow, which serve as a reminder of its continued military capabilities.
– Trump has positioned himself as uniquely capable of bringing Putin to the negotiating table, unlike European leaders who have failed to do so over the past three years. What does Putin need to concede for Trump to claim success? A full Ukrainian surrender?
Putin has drawn a clear red line – he seeks control over Ukrainian territories that he has not yet fully occupied. Meanwhile, Trump is attempting to negotiate using economic incentives, offering access to rare metals and energy resources. This approach aligns with his business-oriented mindset, but it overlooks Putin’s broader ambition: the creation of a Russian superpower, with Ukraine as a key component.
If a ceasefire is implemented, the front line will freeze at its current position, preventing Russia from launching new offensives. Putin does not want this outcome, as it would hinder his long-term goals. Trump’s perspective is shaped by the belief that the Biden administration’s perceived weakness emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine in the first place. He assumes that transactional diplomacy can resolve the war, but he is dealing with a highly experienced political and military strategist in Putin.
– One of Putin’s key objectives is removing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump has also suggested that elections should be held in Ukraine. Could Zelensky’s departure be a precondition for negotiations?
Zelenskyy has stated that he is willing to step down if Ukraine receives ironclad security guarantees. However, this is not a demand that Putin is particularly invested in. Trump may have initially considered Zelenskyy’s removal as part of a broader deal with Russia, but he is beginning to understand that Putin is seeking maximum gains without offering any real concessions.
If Zelenskyy navigates the diplomatic landscape skillfully, as he did following the White House incident, he could place Putin in a difficult position. This, in turn, could create complications for Trump.
– If Trump realizes that Putin is deceiving him and has no intention of agreeing to a ceasefire, could he shift his approach and increase pressure on Russia? Could sanctions and military aid to Ukraine intensify under Trump?
Absolutely. Trump is capable of a complete policy reversal if he perceives that Putin is manipulating him. He could reinstate and even expand sanctions while ramping up military support for Ukraine. There is also the possibility that Putin is deliberately undermining Trump’s credibility, aiming for a victory that secures the most Ukrainian territory possible. The sooner Trump recognizes Putin’s long-term strategy, the better it will be for Ukraine, the United States, and Europe.
– While negotiations to end the war are progressing without European involvement, will Europe strengthen its own security capabilities in response?
If Europe successfully navigates this crisis, it will emerge stronger. The shift toward greater self-reliance in security is a positive development. The security framework established after World War II is now evolving, and Europe must take proactive measures to safeguard its interests.
Rather than viewing America’s potential disengagement from Europe as a loss, some argue that it could lead to stronger, independent security institutions on both sides of the Atlantic. In the long run, this could enhance security not only for Europe but also for countries like Georgia, which rely on continental stability. However, if the US withdraws too far, it risks diminishing its own geopolitical influence both politically and economically.
Interview conducted by Elza Paposhvili
