Afrasianet - US President Donald Trump said  the conversation with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin "went well" and that "the tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent", while Putin described the conversation as "meaningful, frank and very useful".

These and other expressions of praise formed a temporary positive impression regarding the issue of stopping the Russian war that has been ongoing on Ukraine since February 2022, but it was a quick impression, as contrary to expectations, the "excellent" communication did not revive the optimism of Ukrainians, but may have imposed a new atmosphere of anxiety about what the coming days hold of events and developments.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said  he had spoken twice with Trump, asking him to urge Russia to accept a 30-day ceasefire and "not to make any decision on Ukraine without its consent."

Zelensky also demanded that Trump take more serious steps if Russia refuses, and impose sanctions that stop funding the Russian war on his country.

But the outcomes of the call announced by Putin and Trump did not meet any of Ukraine's demands, but were so general and sent that Ukrainians were so suspicious that it could actually lead to a result. 

The most prominent included:

•    Russia's readiness to work with Ukraine on a memorandum of understanding for a ceasefire.

•    Emphasize the importance of resuming negotiations.

•    Reaching compromises that suit both sides and eliminate the roots of the conflict, and then become the basis for a future peace treaty.

•     After the US president briefed him on the results of the call, Zelensky accepted, saying at a press conference that his country was waiting for a Russian proposal to be considered, and was considering the possibility of holding negotiating meetings in Turkey, the Vatican or Switzerland.

But journalists' questions poured on him about sensitive issues, such as mines that prevented any progress on the road to a solution, such as the issue of returning to neutrality and Ukraine's abandonment of NATO membership efforts, Russia's conditions regarding the withdrawal  of Kiev forces  from the entire territory of the 4 provinces it annexed, (Lugansk, Donetsk , Zabarojia and Kherson), and the Ukrainian authorities' recognition of the legalization of Russian control over those territories, in addition to the condition of abandoning Western weapons and building an army.

Zelensky reiterated his country's adherence to the right to self-determination and the sovereignty of decision-making, to which expert Vesenko commented, "Ukraine has long demanded what Trump and Putin have announced, and the problem is not in the mechanisms, but in the intentions, and the devil lies in the details." 

In addition, the call was renewed by Ukrainians, fearing a return to warming US-Russian relations at the expense of their country, but others believe that "it is premature."

Yuri Ushakov, an aide to the Russian president, said Trump and Putin addressed each other by first name Donald and Vladimir, and neither wanted to take the initiative to hang up the phone, and Trump told Putin that he could call him at any time.

Trump expressed support for a return to "huge trade" with Russia, saying he would not impose new sanctions on it now, and that "Putin respects his wife Melania, and Russians love her more than him."

For his part, writer and analyst Ivan Yakovina said that "it is too early to talk about the return of full warmth to US-Russian relations, or Trump's bias towards Russia, the Americans have changed their tactics several times over the past months, and want to give diplomacy a chance until the end." 

Yakovina believes that regardless of the outcome, the United States has not lifted or eased sanctions on Russia, but is waving others in case of failure and increasing military support for Ukraine.

"Trump's vicissitudes do not really change anything, and Washington realizes that Russia's victory will be disastrous for its global standing, for its relations with Europe and the rest of the world."

Ukraine knot. Why has the West failed to defeat Russia so far?

In the early morning hours of February 2022, when smoke billowed over Kiev and Russian tanks crossed the border, it was clear from the very first moments that something dangerous would affect the whole world. This was not a limited war over a disputed territory, but in essence a reopening of global geopolitics from the heart of Eurasia, where the ambitions of major powers always intersect and test power equations.

The war was a crucial test of the international order born on the ruins of the Soviet Union. For Russia's part, the war was an attempt to correct what it sees as a geopolitical breakdown that has plagued it since the end of the Cold War, after the loss of its vital space in Eastern Europe. Ukraine, on the other hand, seeks to permanently break away from the gravity of the Russian orbit and realize the dream of full belonging to the West. In the middle, the United States and Europe are historically divided over setting priorities and defining their respective security imperatives.

Since the beginning of the war, many Western capitals have bet that a combination of tough economic sanctions, generous military support for Ukraine, and NATO unity of position will deter Moscow from backing down, or at least draining its strategic capabilities. 

However, the course of the war, and the subsequent field and political transformations, revealed the limitations of this bet, and showed the West's failure to achieve a decisive victory. More than three years later, it has become clear that the reasons for this failure are not limited to military or field factors, but are due to a deeper and more complex system, including geopolitical, demographic, and strategic dimensions.

Despite sustained pressure, Russia has shown remarkable resilience and resilience in adapting to a protracted war, while the West has faced a gap between its enormous potential and its ability to turn it into tangible results on the ground. What factors prevented the West from achieving a quick victory over Moscow? Why is the war entering its fourth year amid limited hopes of reaching partial agreements without reaching an agreement that will resolve the root causes of the outbreak of war? 

Balance of power and sharp political changes

After more than three years of Western confrontation with Moscow, Russia now effectively controls nearly 20% of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, and most of the territory of the four regions of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zabarozhya, and Kherson, which Moscow announced annexation after the start of the military operation in 2022.

These field gains have been accompanied by a remarkable political change, embodied in the approach of the administration of US President Donald Trump, which adopts a more pragmatic and less aggressive policy, and conducts direct negotiations with Moscow with the aim of stopping the war, even if it requires keeping the areas lost by Ukraine under Russian control.

At its inception, the war seemed like an attempt at a quick invasion by Russia, but it soon turned into a protracted war of attrition. In this type of war, victory depends on two main factors: the ability to fight, and the will to continue it, says Stephen Kotkin, an American historian specializing in Russia.

Combat capability is measured not only by the tanks, fighters, or drones a state possesses, but by what it can produce continuously through its industrial complex, the number of its production lines, factory workers, and foreign alliances.

Russia has increased its military budget to more than 6% of its GDP in 2024, from 3.9%, a clear indication of its intention to continue fighting. In September of the same year, President Putin ordered an increase in the number of the army  by about 180,000 troops, to 1.5 million, his third major expansion since the war began. 

Unlike the Russian case, the Ukrainian side suffers from the fragility of the combat capacity and a gradual depletion of the will to fight, given its excessive dependence on Western supplies. Most of Ukraine's military equipment comes from the United States and European countries, which makes Kiev's ability to continue the war directly linked to the will and commitment of Western partners.

However, despite the intensity of supplies, these countries have not developed enough new production lines to replace what they send to Ukraine. European stockpiles were originally limited, while the production of munitions, especially artillery, continues to proceed at a slower pace than the pace of consumption on the battlefronts.

In clear signs of this attrition, the United States has resorted to borrowing munitions from South Korea, despite constitutional restrictions that prevent Seoul from exporting weapons to conflict zones. Washington has also been forced to supply Ukraine with cluster munitions banned in European countries, and the United States itself has previously reserved their use.

All of this reflects the fragility of Ukraine's own military structure and its inability to cope with the demands of war without direct external support. It also highlights the limited Western will to turn the battle into a comprehensive and long-term confrontation, in light of the increasing internal political pressure in the West, and the feeling of voters financial and military fatigue from a war with no end in sight.

Geography is fighting with Russia

Russia is the largest country in the world, with a geographical span of about 17 million square kilometers, giving it exceptional strategic maneuverability from Eastern Europe to the Pacific coasts. It shares land or sea borders with 16 countries, some of which are nuclear allies, most notably China, the second most powerful economic and military power in the world, with a border of up to 4,200 kilometers, in addition to North Korea, and Iran, which does not share a land border with Russia, but is geographically linked to it via The Caspian Sea, a strategic stretch that is no less logistically important than the land border. 

The pivotal role that geography has played in strengthening Russia's resilience in the face of the Western blockade cannot be overlooked. Its immediate neighbors, such as China, North Korea, and Mongolia, or those linked to them via intermediate borders, have provided them with a variety of support, both through direct supply and strategic crossing points, with motives ranging from self-interest to hostility to Westernism. This wide geographical extension, which includes the heart of Eurasia, makes it practically impossible to impose a comprehensive and effective blockade of the Russia.

Although some of these countries are not fully supportive of Russia, their reluctance to participate in Western sanctions and their retention of economic and trade ties with Moscow effectively make them "geographically allies." 

Nuclear deterrence remains effective

From the earliest days of the war, the specter of fear of nuclear escalation has clouded all Western decisions to calibrate possible responses to Moscow. Despite condemnations, sanctions, and broad Western military support for Kiev, there remain "invisible red lines" constraining Western behavior to prevent nuclear danger.

Russia has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with more than 6,000 nuclear warheads. Since the beginning of the war, President Vladimir Putin and Russian officials have hinted at the possibility of using nuclear weapons in the event of an "existential threat." This threat, though not explicit, has forced policymakers in Washington and Brussels to treat Moscow as a force with "dangerous barriers."

The result was that factories, deep military installations, or infrastructure inside Russia were not targeted, even though they were stretched on the frontlines. Russia has not faced any deep bombardment within its territory as it did with Nazi Germany or Serbia in previous wars, giving it the freedom to safely transport weapons and soldiers within its territory, and continuous military production in factories far from the frontlines. 

In contrast, Ukraine did not enjoy this strategic depth, as its infrastructure was a constant target of Russian bombardment, placing it in a permanent defensive position.

Overall, the fear of slipping into a direct confrontation with a nuclear power has constrained Western countries' options. Both the United States and NATO have refused to establish a no-fly zone, send ground troops, or deliver long-range missiles to Ukraine (at the beginning of the war) to strike deep inside Russia. Even when Washington provided Kiev with long-range missiles (ATACMS), it imposed strict conditions that they should not be used inside Russian territory.

The prediction of the nuclear threat may have been exaggerated, but the probability of its use is not zero, and Putin seems to have bet that the mere threat of nuclear ambiguity is enough to paralyze the will of the West in some directions, and it has worked. 

Russia's War Economy and Circumvention of Sanctions

Europe and the United States bet on the "weapon of sanctions" to be an effective tool that leads to the destruction of the Russian economy and the defeat of Moscow, but the reality and the figures of the Russian economy tell a different story that proves the widespread failure of the West's bets, and reveals many of the shortcomings in the use of that weapon.

As the Russian-Ukrainian war enters its fourth year, and despite 16 packages of Western sanctions, Russia's GDP grew by 4.1 percent in 2024, compared to 3.6 percent the year before, after reaching -1.3 percent at the start of the war.

Despite the broad sanctions, Russia has successfully circumvented trade restrictions by selling oil informally, as well as exporting nickel, platinum and natural gas to countries such as China and India. 

Russian factories also continued to obtain raw materials and technology for military production, enabling the country to continue the war without major financial crises.

In an effort to curb Russian profits from oil, the Group of Seven announced that Western insurers and ships could only be used when shipping oil at $60 or less. So Russia has developed a new network of ships in order to get around restrictions and continue shipping to China and India. 

According to the Atlantic Council, which tracks the impact of sanctions, Russia transports 71 percent of its oil exports through a "stealth fleet" whose assets are hidden. Windward  data in September 2023 also showed that 1,400 vessels were used to transport Russian oil in defiance of Western sanctions, many of which sail uninsured.

The Atlantic Council also noted that most Russian banks continue to have access to SWIFT (a messaging service that connects financial institutions around the world) enabling them to conduct international transactions and settle cross-border payments.

U.S. Orientation to China and Other European Priorities

For at least the past decade, containing China's rise in the Indo-Pacific region, and the potential conflict over Taiwan, has been seen as top priorities for the United States. Although Washington has extensively supported Ukraine militarily and economically, the conflict with Russia has not been a top US strategic priority, compared to the Chinese file, where China stands out as the first challenge force of the international system led by Washington.

Unlike South Korea, Japan, Taiwan (implicitly), and NATO countries, Ukraine does not have a binding defense pact with the US. So U.S. support for it, while important, remains limited by the nature of broader U.S. strategic interests, making it closer to political solidarity and conditional military assistance, rather than an existential commitment. 

Aside from America's enormous economic and military capability, political leadership cannot fight or finance multiple major conflicts simultaneously. Escalation in Taiwan, or a direct confrontation with China, would be more complex and geopolitically important than the war in Ukraine, whatever its outcome. This is why U.S. policymakers balance support for Ukraine with mobilizing capabilities to curb China's influence.

Washington seems to have recently realized that the continuation of the Ukraine war will be an open conflict that drains the United States' energy, weakens its ability to focus on its long-term priorities, and threatens to create a state of internal political and popular "strategic fatigue" that may affect Washington's commitments to Taiwan or its alliances in Asia.

In addition to Washington, in some countries such as Germany, France, Hungary and Slovakia, political forces have emerged questioning the feasibility of continuing to support Ukraine, and voices have risen from right-wing and populist currents saying, "This is not our war," or "Why are we giving Ukraine billions of dollars while we are suffering internally?" Other countries, such as the Baltic states and Poland, are calling for an apparent military defeat for Russia, arguing that any settlement would give Russia a chance to regain its regional influence.

This strategic hesitation and division over the interpretation of the war and the limits of the supposed position have recently shown the Western camp as a dissident looking for a way out.

But what is remarkable is that despite Europe's conviction that it cannot make any victory over Russia, no matter how much it exaggerates its support for Ukraine, some Europe is still calling for the continuation of the war, for fear of the repercussions of stopping the war on the European interior, which impoverished its people and pushed its budgets to austerity, and the Europeans have become more dependent on the United States of America, especially in the field of energy. Therefore, stopping the war may push the European public to revolutions whose extent is unknown. After the question arises why we pushed The price of support for Ukraine from our economy and the well-being of our lives and other questions will lead European politicians to political doom as there are no answers to all these questions.

On the geostrategic front, Russian strategists see Ukraine as a necessary buffer zone to protect the Russian depth from any possible Western aggression. Russia has historically suffered devastating invasions across the Ukrainian plain – from Napoleon's campaign in the nineteenth century to Hitler's invasion in World War II – and is therefore entrenched in the Russian strategic consciousness that the absence of control or influence in Ukraine opens the door to an existential threat that cannot be tolerated or lived with. If Ukraine joins NATO, for example, the alliance's missiles could be installed no more than 200 kilometers from St. Petersburg.

Besides the security concern, there is a historical and identity dimension that governs Moscow's view of Ukraine. Putin and other senior Russian officials have often expressed the conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people" with deep historical and religious roots.  Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. According to this perspective, Kiev is considered the cradle of East Slavic civilization, as Kievan Rus was born in the ninth century AD, and Russian nationalists see it as the historical root of the modern Russian state. 

It is these considerations that have led Brzezinski and others since the fall of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of Eastern Europe to argue that Ukraine's remaining neutral is necessary to prevent provoking Russia, and that any attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO would represent enormous pressures on Russia's national and strategic consciousness that he could not afford. But for a precisely inexplicable reason; after many years of rationalizing attempts to curb Moscow, the United States and NATO ventured beyond the established red lines of the post-Cold War order, an adventure from which they did not emerge. After .

Today the topic of peace negotiations between Russia andUkraine, which had been retreated due to "tariff wars", is quickly returning to the agenda.

A few days ago, the Western press began publishing information "from within" about how negotiations to end hostilities are proceeding and the conditions put forward by the parties to the conflict.

An article published in the Financial Times on April 22 caused a stir, claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin had proposed to  the United States a cessation of military action along the current frontlines.

But the Kremlin quickly responded to the information through its spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, by saying: "There is a lot of fake news being published now and from respectable sources, so only the original sources should be heard."

"Last Show"

This comes as the details of the "final offer"  of peace that Washington  made to Kiev on April 17 are being intensely discussed, and the White House is waiting  for a response.

Vice President J.D. Vance said the U.S. had presented Russia and Ukraine with "a very clear proposal for a peace agreement, which both sides must now either accept or continue the negotiation process without the United States," advising the parties to the conflict to "lay down their arms, freeze the conflict, and move toward building their own countries." 

Western media claimed that the Russian offer came during a meeting between the Russian president and US President Donald Trump 's special envoy on April 11 and lasted more than 4 hours.

According to the Kremlin, the main topic of the negotiations was the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, without revealing further details.

Russia's interests

According to international conflict researcher Fyodor Kuzmin, the truce announced by Moscow on Easter was a step in the search for a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian conflict but did not receive an "appropriate" response from Kiev, and therefore it is not possible today to predict whether the negotiations initiated by the United States between Moscow and Kiev will bear fruit.

Kuzmin says that if Kiev continues its "stubborn" attitude and does not reach an agreement with Moscow, Washington may stop its "services" as a mediator and take - in response - hardline positions towards Ukraine.

By conducting the negotiating process, Russia already knows that Ukraine is not ready for peace in any way.

In this case, Kuzmin continues, the Russian negotiator's task will be to conduct the negotiations for as long as possible, because this process is in its interest, as well as beneficial to both Russia and the United States.

According to him, Putin's proposal to "rework" Donald Trump's "hasty" initiative for an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine, taking into account Russian interests, allows Moscow to try to "seize" the initiative in the process of negotiating Ukraine.

To this end, Washington must be persuaded not to listen too much about the "red lines" set by Kiev and the initiatives of European countries. 

At the same time, Putin has kept the issue of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's legitimacy  on the agenda, and is working to have Trump resolve it before declaring a ceasefire, leaving only the question of who will give orders to the Ukrainian armed forces to cease fire and the price of those orders.

For his part, the director of the Center for Political Forecasting, Denis Kirkudinov, believes that Putin is promoting a formula in which peace negotiations between the main players, Russia and the United States, are held while the other participants only follow the news.

He says that Moscow has repeatedly stressed at various levels that external guarantees for compliance with the agreements are important for it, so that the experience of the Minsk 2 agreement is not repeated.

On this basis, it is important for Russia to "exclude" Ukraine and EU countries  from discussions with America on the main elements of a future settlement, so that they lead to the formation of a new strategic path for relations between Moscow and Washington, and Ukraine remains only one of the topics in the context of negotiations between the parties, such as Iran'  s nuclear program or gas projects in the Arctic.

He adds that the format of closed negotiations with US special envoy Stephen Whitkoff is "ideally" suited to achieve this goal. 

Trump's remarks

In Washington , US President Donald Trump said the United States was "very close" to reaching an agreement to end the war in Ukraine, in remarks addressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's position on the issue of Russia's annexation ofCrimea. 

Trump told reporters at the White House that he believed he had a deal with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian president to settle the war in Ukraine.

Trump said he found it harder than expected to work with the Ukrainian president, adding that he "thinks Russia is ready, and many see that it was taking everything without any compromise. I think we have reached an agreement with her, and now we have to reach an agreement with Zelensky."

After previously talking about a deal soon, Trump said – via his own network Truth Social – that "the man who does not have bargaining chips must work now to make it happen," referring to the Ukrainian president.

"Europe is looking for war".. Rubio returns with shocking news from Rome

 US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has now expressed surprise at his country's pursuit of peace, while Europe seems more drawn to conflict and based his remarks on what he heard during his recent visit to Rome. 

Rubio said he had received assessments during his visit that there were actors in Europe inclined to fuel the conflict.

Speaking at a dinner organized by the Kennedy Center's Board of Trustees chaired by US President Donald Trump, he said: "One of the cardinals I met told me – and his words were very strange from our point of view – that it is the American president who wants peace, while some Europeans insist on moving towards military options, as if the world has turned upside down." 

Politico: EU rearmament plans threaten collapse of member states' economies

He added that Trump prefers to reduce spending on defense issues, so that this money can be directed towards boosting economic growth.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has announced that US President Donald Trump is already engaged in settling the Ukraine crisis, while European leaders are openly pro-Ukrainian stance.

On the important phone conversation that lasted more than two hours between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump, Trump then said: 

"Russia and Ukraine will immediately begin negotiations towards a ceasefire and, most importantly, an end to the war."   

German government spokesman Stefan Cornelius said European countries had agreed to tighten sanctions against Russia after President Putin's conversation with his US counterpart Trump.

In the context , Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Ukraine's expectation of President Vladimir Putin's participation in the last Istanbul negotiations was "a sick imagination invented by Vladimir Zelensky." 

Zakharova pointed out in an interview with the radio station "Sputnik" that Russia announced in advance the composition of its delegation to the Istanbul negotiations. 

According to her, President Putin clearly stated ahead of the negotiations that "a Russian delegation will travel to Istanbul."

"It is clear that this delegation includes a group of high-level experts. That's exactly what was said. Later, the strength of the delegation and the personalities participating in it were announced."

Commenting on Zelensky's remarks about the composition of the Russian negotiating group, Zakharova continued: "They were waiting for the head of state. Who said that? These are all ridiculous illusions of Zelensky's creation, and he constantly repeats these fabrications."

On May 16, Istanbul witnessed the first direct negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in three years.

After its completion, the head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Medinsky, stated that Russia and Ukraine agreed to conduct a broad exchange of prisoners in a thousand-for-one format, present their vision for a ceasefire, elaborate their proposals on this issue, as well as continue negotiations. In addition, Kiev requested a meeting between the heads of state, which Moscow took into account.

Politico: Washington opposes the inclusion of Ukraine's support clause in the Group of Seven statement

The United States opposes the inclusion of an item on providing more support to Ukraine in the final communiqué of the meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors of the Group of Seven countries, which is being held in Canada. 

According to them, the United States also opposes naming the special military operation in Ukraine in the document as "illegal."

The Group of Seven finance ministers' meeting will be held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, from May 20 to 22.

In February, US President Donald Trump said he wanted to return Russia to the Group of Seven, saying excluding it was a mistake.

The Group of Seven (G7)  includes Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, the United States, France and Japan, and included Russia until 2014.

In March 2014, as a result of the events in Ukraine and the subsequent crisis in relations between the United States and Russia, Western participants in the Assembly, during the term of US President Barack Obama, decided to exclude Russia from the group.

It is noteworthy that the Group of Seven countries, in addition to the European Union countries and some other countries allied with the West, imposed in December 2022 restrictions on the price of Russian oil exported by sea, and in February 2023 on the prices of oil derivatives, as part of sanctions against the background of the Russian military operation in Ukraine.

In October last year, the group announced that it planned to step up efforts to prevent financial institutions from circumventing the group's sanctions against Russia, especially in third countries. 

One of the surprises of the Istanbul meeting  is that journalists of the Turkish  channel CNN revealed the secret of the Ukrainian delegation's failure to use the services of an interpreter during the negotiations in Istanbul. Local reporters reported that the member of the delegation, Oleg Golovko, who was supposed to translate what Russian negotiators were saying to the Ukrainian delegation, fled Turkey before the meeting began.

According to Turkish media, Golovko left the country by land. It seems that, in order to mislead his "pursuers", he did not leave the capital Ankara by plane, but rented a car and crossed the border into Bulgaria, only to lose track of him in Europe. The TV channel reported that Oleg Golovko had been on Defense Minister Rustam Umarov's team since 2023.

It should be noted that recently Ukrainian translators "jump off the ship" (before it sank). The last time the interpreter left the delegation was during negotiations between representatives of the United States and Ukraine in Riyadh at the end of March. At that time, the second assistant interpreter of the Ukrainian delegation disappeared from the hotel where the delegation was staying. It turned out that the man had flown from Saudi Arabia to Turkey and from there to France. Given the experience of his predecessor, it seems that Oleg Golovko decided not to use air travel to escape, because the documents facilitate the tracing of his final destination.