US-Ukraine ceasefire proposal puts ball in Putin’s court

The United States says Ukraine has agreed to its proposal for a 30-day ceasefire with Russia following three years of war.

The announcement followed peace talks in Saudi Arabia, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky traveled on March 10, and is a remarkable turn of events. The ball is now in Russia’s court in terms of whether it accepts the ceasefire proposal.

Zelensky’s recent shouting match with US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the White House, at a surface level, could not have gone much worse from the Ukrainian leader’s perspective. Both Trump and Vance subjected Zelensky to scathing attacks before their meeting abruptly ended.

The fallout from the meeting initially seemed even worse than the meeting itself. On March 3, Trump paused material military aid to Ukraine, and two days later, the US stopped sharing intelligence with Ukrainians. The decision on intelligence has since been reversed following Ukraine’s agreement with the ceasefire proposal.

When campaigning for president, Trump promised to end the war in 24 hours. After he won a second term, Trump has appeared disinterested and even antagonistic towards Russia at times.

The domestic turmoil that’s been fuelled by many of his policies, however, has seemingly caused him to seek a win in international affairs. Enter Ukraine.

Nonetheless, Trump’s increased focus on Ukraine in recent weeks, including his Oval Office attack on Zelensky, has required the Ukrainian leader to adapt. He’s therefore been making moves to shore up support for Ukraine in a world devoid of American leadership.

Trump’s fixation

Trump’s fixation with Ukraine stems from several aspects of his world view.

First, while theories of Trump being a Russian agent may be overblown, he does seem fixated on Russian President Vladimir Putin. This fixation likely stems from the fact that Putin, much like Trump, views the world in a transactional manner. Putin is someone with whom Trump, who broadcasts himself as a deal-maker, can reach an agreement.

Second, the Russia-Ukraine conflict aligns with Trump’s world view that the US provides too much and the rest of the world too little to secure international stability. This perspective is particularly the case with Europe, which Trump views as “free-loading” via American security guarantees.

Third, Trump views Ukraine as having the potential to assist American industry and defence, just not in a military manner. The rare earth minerals that Ukraine possesses have significant economic and military implications, and the market is dominated by the state Trump and many others view as America’s chief rival: China.

Fourth and finally, Trump correctly views the US as having leverage over Ukraine. American military aid has largely allowed Ukraine to fight a protracted war against a much larger enemy. While the degradation of Russia’s military and economy benefits the US, Trump’s focus on short-term objectives largely overlooks this point.

Did Zelensky outplay Trump?

Trump, however, did not account for Zelensky’s strength of character. While Trump is seeking to use Ukraine for his own advantage, Zelensky remains focused on Ukraine’s interests — and not on America first. The emerging personality conflict between both men made the chaotic Oval Office meeting almost inevitable.

Given Trump’s rhetoric towards Zelenskyy in the lead-up to that meeting, it’s curious the Ukrainian leader agreed to the meeting at all. But Zelenskyy himself reportedly pushed for the meeting, and even had French President Emmanuel Macron intervene on his behalf.

American support for Ukraine was disappearing before the tumultuous meeting. There has been no new aid for Ukraine since Trump assumed the presidency. For Ukraine to survive, it needs a new patron.

Zelensky has taken risks during the conflict, not all of which have worked in his or Ukraine’s favor. Those risks, however, have always been calculated. His attempt to bolster support for Ukraine among its non-American allies following the contentious White House meeting might be an example of this type of calculation.

Europe rallies around Ukraine

In the aftermath of the meeting, the international community has rallied around Ukraine. Most important, however, has been the European response.

For all the problems in Trump’s approach, he is correct that the European response to Russia’s invasion has left a lot to be desired from Ukraine’s perspective. While Europe has provided more financial assistance to Ukraine than the US, it has largely occurred in spurts and only after American leadership on the issue.

France and the United Kingdom have emerged as Ukraine’s biggest backers in Europe. This is not new, as both countries have been among Ukraine’s most vocal supporters over the last few years. What Ukraine needs, however, is for that vocal support to turn into action.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced an 800 billion euro program for European Union members to bolster their defence capabilities soon after Zelenskyy met with European leaders in London in early March. In explaining her rationale, von der Leyen stated:

“With this equipment, member states can massively step up their support to Ukraine… This approach of joint procurement will also reduce costs, reduce fragmentation, increase interoperability and strengthen our defence industrial base.”

EU is critical

Though not perfect, the renewed support from the EU and the UK may allow Ukraine to continue fighting as Russia’s declining economy hinders Putin’s war effort.

In the aftermath of the Oval Office showdown with Trump and Vance, Zelensky has done what he can to repair Ukraine’s relationship with the US and satiate Trump’s ego, but tension remains.

From Ukraine’s perspective, it needs a new partner in its war against Russia, and the EU can serve that purpose. The US may be the country pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine, but it’s Europe that will play the most vital role in Ukraine’s ability to fight the war if it endures.

James Horncastle is assistant professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney professor in international relations, Simon Fraser University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.