Russia Rejects Trump’s Freeze Of The War In Ukraine

April 28, 2025

The details of the ceasefire negotiations between the U.S., Europe and Ukraine continue to make headlines despite being largely irrelevant for an end of the conflict in Ukraine.

In an interview with Brazilian paper O Globo (in Portuguese) Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov again repeated the Russian demands for peace in Ukraine.

It requires:

an end of Ukraine's ban on negotiations with Russia,
for Ukraine to go back to the status of a neutral and non-aligned country in accordance with the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine in the 1990's,
an end of the policies of legally and physically destroy everything Russian: the language, media, culture, traditions, and Russian orthodoxy
the international recognition of Russia's ownership of Crimea, the DPR, LPR and the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.

There must also be measures to legal fix those positions, to make them permanent and to have enforcement mechanisms.

Also required is, says Lavrov, (edited machine translation):

.. a schedule for the task of de-and desnazifiction in Ukraine, and the lifting of the sanctions, actions, lawsuits and arrest warrants, and the transfer of assets to Russia which are 'frozen' in the West. Also, we will look for reliable warranties for the security of the Russian Federation, and against the threats created by the hostile activity of Nato, the European Union and its individual member states on the country's borders in the west.

There is then no change in the Russian position since its President Vladimir Putin explained it at length on June 14 2024.

Meanwhile the U.S. is very publicly negotiating with Ukraine and Europe about some ceasefire conditions along the lines the pro-Ukrainian (and neo-conservative?) General Kellogg has long promoted (also here):

Kellogg’s implicit assumptions were that Russia is highly vulnerable to a sanctions threat (its economy perceived as being fragile); that it had suffered unsustainably high casualties; and that the war was at a stalemate.

Thus, Kellogg persuaded Trump that Russia would readily agree to the ceasefire terms proposed – albeit terms that were constructed around patently flawed underlying assumptions about Russia and its presumed weaknesses.
…
All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust. And despite Steve Witkoff’s subsequent three lengthy personal meetings with President Putin, in which Putin repeatedly stated that he would not accept any ceasefire until a political framework had been first agreed, the Kellogg contingent continued to blandly assume that Russia would be forced to accept Kellogg’s détente because of the claimed serious ‘setbacks’ Russia had suffered in Ukraine.

Given this history, unsurprisingly, the ceasefire framework terms outlined by Rubio this week in Paris reflected those more suited to a party at the point of capitulation, rather than that of a state anticipating achieving its objectives – by military means.

In essence, the Kellogg Plan looked to bring a U.S. ‘win’ on terms aligned to a desire to keep open the option for continuing attritional war on Russia.

In his O Globo interview Lavrov again made it known that Russia can not and will not commit to a temporary freeze of the conflict without having a clear path towards the larger peace agreement.

In sight of this it is funny how Russia has managed to hand the tar-baby of blocking a ceasefire to the (former) Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenski.

Despite U.S. pressure for a fast deal Russia does not expect any quick resolution of the conflict. It just announced a new unilateral ceasefire from May 8 to May 10, i.e. around the 80th anniversary of its victory in World War II on May 9.

It is another public sign that Russia is willing to adhere to a ceasefire agreement IF the conditions are right.

Trump still tries to behave like a neutral mediator in a conflict between Kiev and Moscow. He wants to impose a peace deal that projects his personal 'greatness'.

But the U.S. has been and continues to be the main party of the war with Russia while Ukraine is the mere proxy force that does the bleeding. Trump can not impose a fast solution to end the war because he still can not accept that he is a main party in it.

Russia is winning the war. A solution can only be found when the U.S. is ready to (silently) accept its defeat.

Trump can still end the war and declare it a "win". But only if he agrees to the conditions that Russia has laid out for him.

Posted by b on April 28, 2025 at 15:41 UTC | Permalink

Comments

U.S. “investors” will post up in Ukraine, as a uniquely financialized *security force* not the 101st Airborne.
Yes, the accountants & the actuaries are going to swarm down on Ivano-Frankivsk, perhaps even guarding the military airstrip there, which is stacked w/ F-16s, while simultaneously scanning every which way for a tiny grain of rare earths.
The boots-on-the-ground will bring w/ them calculators and pocket-protectors and an AI-powered abacus, which is a gamechanger.
And oh by the way the clever clever Ukrainians, happy to get their Hedge Fund Backstop for western Ukraine, managed to blame VVP for the war w/ this kind of language: “Russia’s full-scale invasion.”

Posted by: steel_porcupine | May 1 2025 13:39 utc | 501

They must be trembling from that rate of advance in UKR. By the year 3000, Putin may be entering Berlin!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 1 2025 11:30 utc | 540
Your thinking is mired in 19th century colonialism.
In the modern world powerful nations don’t defeat an adversary and then deal with the headache of administrating over the land and hostile population they just conquered. That’s how 19th century colonialism worked and powerful nations have long ago realized that doesn’t work anymore.
What do Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, and Syria all have in common? They were allies of Russia that were militarily attacked by the West. Korea is the outlier. The West half won the Korean war and then spent decades propping up their victory.
In the late 50’s Kissinger wrote an op-ed that said the West cannot afford any more wars like Korea. The US should not fight these wars with the idea of winning and installing a West-friendly regime. Instead it should go in with the idea of causing maximum destruction and chaos and then walk away. The ROW will get the message ‘Align with the West or this is what happens to your country’
So now it appears that Russia has taken its cue from the playbook of the West. If the West wants Ukraine as an ally Russia will eventually give Ukraine to the West (at least those parts where the population is hostile to Russia). But the Ukraine that the West gets will be a basket case that will be a burden to the West. After the destruction of Ukraine the Baltic states may get the massage about the wisdom of aligning with the West. Europe will also wonder about the wisdom of bankrupting itself just to spite Russia.

Posted by: jinn | May 1 2025 14:01 utc | 502

As face saving cover…There’s no better bargaining chip than genuine indifference.
Posted by: Tel | May 1 2025 10:56 utc | 539
—
Why does he need cover? Man the eff up. Make a scrunch sound and squeeze those balls back into the scrotum. Just DO. I don’t care if it is neocon or MAGA. Liberal or consservative. Just grow a pair and implement. I am soooo effing tired of the Sean Hannity style blowhards. Shut up, put the cell phone down, get off Fox News, and roll!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1 2025 14:02 utc | 503

569: Yawn…more trust the 5D chess plan. Like the nitwits at The Last Refuge. Don’t worry…Durham is coming!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1 2025 14:11 utc | 504

Posted by: William | May 1 2025 13:44 utc | 567
————————
You have literally flooded this thread with your perpetual rant towards VVP, arguing that he is ready for an unconditional ceasefire despite his former statements. Everybody understands now that you wish, beg, pray that he accepts this unconditional ceasefire to your satisfaction, which to date he has not (and won’t).
All your diarrhoea depends on an assumption that has not materialised, hence stop flooding every thread and shut up.
When the IF will become reality, you still can get back gloating how you were correct.
Meanwhile stop polluting the board.

Posted by: scc | May 1 2025 14:28 utc | 505

In response to William@500,
The explanation is very straight-forward. Your objectives ≠ Russian objectives. Here’s something you could do to expand your perspective all on your own — play a bit of Hearts of Iron IV. It’s an abstraction of warfare, sure, but it hits many of the same beats. Pick a nation that isn’t under time-pressure of invasion by a stronger opponent, so that you have at least a few years to build up strength, and select an arbitrary weaker punching bag, make a save game and try pursuing different strategic objectives with that conflict and measure their pros and cons. Think about what you’re after, what the next step is, when you’re forcing a quick capitulation, v.s extending the conflict, what the difference is between using all your combat formations v.s keeping most of them in reserve and rotating them out. Play SU if you want an illustration of how to win in defense by attrition, conserving resources and managing production and supply rather than going on the offensive. I’m sure it will be a fun learning experience for you.
The reason I think so, is because your comment implies that, in your view, effort needs to be reflected in expeditiousness, which isn’t the case. It implies that the value of territory is measured in meters rather than inherent strategic utility. That a hypothetical larger force should want to comprehensively overwhelm a smaller one. Furthermore, that the use of DPRK troops is a Russian choice made out of necessity. These and many other assumptions on your part may end up being challenged by the game, especially if you play it on higher difficulties and choose scenarios where your state isn’t a clear favorite to emerge victorious, as the pros and cons of different strategies become more pronounced that way. It helps to have your ideas challenged by a self-contained system rather than a person, an equation representing fictional scenarios rather than subjective interpretations of real-world events, because the question then becomes how closely this system mirrors reality, rather than choosing whether to accept or reject the stated opinions of others, and it also places you in charge of making the strategic decisions, the lack of which seems to be frustrating for you in your current situation. Just my suggestion, Will, and I hope you find it a fun and fruitful use of your time.

Posted by: Skiffer | May 1 2025 14:32 utc | 506

jinn | May 1 2025 14:01 utc | 569
*** Russia will eventually give Ukraine to the West (at least those parts where the population is hostile to Russia). But the Ukraine that the West gets will be a basket case that will be a burden to the West. After the destruction of Ukraine the Baltic states may get the massage about the wisdom of aligning with the West. Europe will also wonder about the wisdom of bankrupting itself just to spite Russia.***
But the parts of Ukraine the West is most likely to get are comparatively undamaged.
As for the minerals deal with Trump …. that’s rather odd, since both the UK and EU already claimed deals for the exact same stuff …. and where debt is concerned suspect that Starmer’s secretive treaty with Kiev will end up extorting vast amounts of money from the British public…
In any case, “Europe will also wonder about the wisdom of bankrupting itself just to spite Russia” is not quite right. The politicians and bureaucrats in charge of the EU and UK don’t just do it to spite “Russia”, they do it to spite the populations of their own countries (which they, having been carefully selected, almost all thoroughly hate) while proving how insanely loyal they are to the ruling elite of the USA, its corporatist cult of neoliberal/neoconism and the globalized oligarch Overlords.

Posted by: Cynic | May 1 2025 20:13 utc | 507

But the parts of Ukraine the West is most likely to get are comparatively undamaged.
Posted by: Cynic | May 1 2025 20:13 utc | 575
You make it sound like the fall of Ukraine is something that will happen soon.
The US bombed Indochina for 15 years. Dropping more tonnage than all the bombs in WWII and Indochina had little that’s worth bombing.
Ukraine has more area and targets. Ukraine also has a lot more military equipment to be destroyed. It takes time.
Ukraine is already a substantial drain on the West.
The point I was making is Russia doesn’t need or want any more territory to administrate. Russia has no ambition to take Berlin as the poster I was responding to suggested. Conquering territories is the mentality of 19th century colonialists.

Posted by: jinn | May 1 2025 23:33 utc | 508

Re: Posted by: Winston | May 1 2025 12:58 utc | 555

All of Donetsk must be given to Russia. Lugansk is nearly all free. Unfreed areas of Kherson and Zaporozhye should be given under Russian government command and be completely demilitirised zones for 5 years but with 50% of taxation going to Ukiestan coffers.Nothing more than Rosgvardia and the understanding that any buildup of forces on the border or going into Russian controlled but not liberated sections of Kherson and Zaporozhye would be flattened by airstrikes. If the Ukies behave themselves for 5-10 years then the areas of Kherson and Zaporizhye not won in battle by the Russian military could be handed back to Ukiestan with finer details related to language, culture and business worked out.
If the Ukies, break the deal ,well that’s what buffers are for and they will get steamrollered anyway.

This is bizarre, pie in the sky, laugh out loud fantasy land ridiculous copium.
Why would Donetsk just be given to Russia?!?
If they can’t win it on the battlefield against a weakened and destitute Ukraine – what does that say about their fighting capabilities?
Pretty pathetic one must assume.
Tell me again about how this attrition warfare works if it doesn’t even mean the liberation of Donetsk unless it is just (for some bizarre unfathomable reason) just given to Russia!!!
” Flattened by airstrikes” – if that were possible – why not just do it now and liberate that territory?!? – what the heck are they waiting for exactly?
The reality on the ground suggests they can’t actually do this.
The Ukies have broken plenty of deals already – so why aren’t they being steamrollered right now?!?
The Ukies constantly break falls – but the Russian reaction is always muted – no steamrolling.
The rest of what you say is just weird.

Posted by: Julian | May 2 2025 0:50 utc | 509

“The point I was making is Russia doesn’t need or want any more territory to administrate. Russia has no ambition to take Berlin as the poster I was responding to suggested. Conquering territories is the mentality of 19th century colonialists.”
Posted by: jinn | May 1 2025 23:33 utc | 576
Indeed, the relevant phrase is “judging others by yourself”.
The whole geopolitical mess of today is caused by the west, especially angloworld, disappearing down the rabbit hole of their tiny diseased mind bubble and being incapable of imagining or realising that other people see the world in a different way.
This will eventually result in English disappearing as a global language.

Posted by: Andrew Sarchus | May 2 2025 8:23 utc | 510

Back to Main