* Although Putin has ordered an immediate halt to strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for 30 days, there is no mention of Russia’s willingness to sign on to a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire as proposed by Trump and accepted by Ukraine.
* In response to the phone call, Zelensky said that his country supports any proposals leading to a lasting and just peace, but his country’s direct involvement in peace negotiations is needed.
* The lack of information in the readouts by the White House and the Kremlin is striking. Key omissions include whether the phone call covered territorial arrangements; the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership, which is a strategic concern for Moscow; the ongoing sanctions against Russia; and security guarantees for Ukraine.
by Xinhua writers Qu Junya, Wang Zongnan
BEIJING, March 19 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, held a phone conversation on Tuesday and agreed on an initial step toward peace in Ukraine, while Kiev has repeated its demand for direct involvement in peace talks with support reiterated by major European countries.
A comparison of the readouts of the call by the White House and the Kremlin reveals different narratives, which point to possible major divides that may jeopardize any peace agreements.
DIVERGING READOUTS
The two readouts diverged on what was agreed on by the two leaders during the phone conversation, which lasted at least one and a half hours.
The White House said the two leaders agreed on the need to end the three-year-old Russia-Ukraine conflict with a lasting peace, on starting the process “with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire,” and on soon launching technical negotiations on a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, as well as a full ceasefire and a permanent peace deal.
Among others, the White House stressed a U.S.-Russia detente as beneficial to economic deals and geopolitical stability.
The focal points of the Kremlin readout include Russia’s requirements for a Trump-proposed 30-day ceasefire. Putin emphasized that a complete end to foreign military aid and intelligence sharing for Ukraine is key to preventing conflict escalation and reaching a political and diplomatic settlement.
Although Putin has ordered an immediate halt to strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for 30 days, there is no mention of Russia’s willingness to sign on to a comprehensive 30-day ceasefire as proposed by Trump and accepted by Ukraine.
UKRAINE, EUROPE FEEL SIDELINED
In response to the phone call, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that his country supports any proposals leading to a lasting and just peace, but his country’s direct involvement in peace negotiations is needed.
“Without Ukraine’s involvement, I believe reaching an agreement is futile,” he said. “We need to understand what the conversation is about.”
Zelensky confirmed that the work has begun on the “175 for 175” prisoner exchange agreed on in the phone call. He criticized Putin for rejecting a complete ceasefire.
Leaders from Germany, France and Britain reiterated their steadfast support for Ukraine.
During their meeting in Berlin on Tuesday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the Trump-Putin phone call as an important step, while reaffirming support for Ukraine’s full involvement in peace talks, saying no decisions about Ukraine’s future should be made “over the heads” of the Ukrainian people.
Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow with the London-based think tank Chatham House, told NBC News that “the United States is negotiating with Russia about other people’s territory, which is precisely the nightmare scenario that not just Ukraine, but other countries in the east of Europe had feared.”
Giles added that this situation is causing growing alarm not only in Europe but also among other U.S. allies, “because they know … that they could be next.”
OPAQUE READOUTS, CLOUDED FUTURE
The lack of information in the readouts by the White House and the Kremlin is striking. Key omissions include whether the phone call covered territorial arrangements; the question of Ukraine’s NATO membership, which is a strategic concern for Moscow; the ongoing sanctions against Russia; and security guarantees for Ukraine.
The diverging readouts and the lack of information on key factors indicate major divides between the White House and the Kremlin, according to U.S. media reports.
The Economist noted that the deal underscores how swiftly political shifts can reshape a battlefield. It also highlighted Trump’s vision of a world divided into great-power spheres of influence, which has prompted “nervous Europeans to scramble to do more to help Ukraine, and to defend themselves.”
The New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman criticized Trump’s unilateral engagement with Putin, saying it “smells wrong” that he did not involve U.S. allies. “Trump has never made clear what concessions, sacrifices and guarantees he is demanding from Russia to get a peace deal on Ukraine,” he added.
BBC correspondent Anthony Zurcher cautioned that “as we have seen in Gaza, ceasefires don’t always lead to lasting peace.” He further noted that “it is unlikely that Ukraine, or its European allies, will agree to concessions.”
The Wall Street Journal cited Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, as saying “This is very bad news for Ukraine, which is increasingly being treated as a bargaining chip in this game.”■
