As Trump fails to sanction Moscow, few expect breakthrough during upcoming Russia-Ukraine talks
As Ukraine and Russia prepare for peace talks scheduled for June 2 in Istanbul, few observers expect a breakthrough.
While the U.S. and Ukraine have pushed for an unconditional ceasefire, the Kremlin has rejected it.
Instead, Moscow has regularly voiced maximalist demands that are unlikely to be accepted by Kyiv, such as recognition of Russia's illegal annexation of Ukrainian regions and withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the parts of these regions remaining under Kyiv's control.
U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed frustration with Russia's reluctance to make concessions and its intensifying and deadly attacks on Ukraine. However, he has so far refused to sanction Russia.
Jenny Mathers, a lecturer in international politics at the U.K.'s Aberystwyth University, said that "(Russian President Vladimir) Putin is clearly engaged in a balancing act between making gestures towards peace to keep Trump quiet without making any compromises or actually trying to ensure that the peace talks make any real progress."
"There are no signs that Russia is willing to consider making any concessions, and every sign that Russia intends to keep pushing ahead on the battlefield to try to take control of as much Ukrainian territory as possible," she told the Kyiv Independent.
Read also: 'Trump doesn't know how to deal with gangsters' — US lets Ukraine down, once again
During the first round of talks in Istanbul on May 16, the two sides failed to reach agreement on a 30-day ceasefire. The only concrete result of the Istanbul talks was a 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner swap completed on May 25 — the biggest prisoner exchange during the war.
Ukraine sent a delegation headed by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to Istanbul, while Russia sent a low-level delegation led by Putin's aide Vladimir Medinsky.
Putin did not attend the Istanbul peace talks, despite an invitation from President Volodymyr Zelensky to meet him face-to-face.
"The talks did yield a quite sizable exchange of prisoners," Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Kyiv Independent. "But the glass was more half empty than half full. Putin refused to send a high-level delegation and seemingly little progress was made on the key issue — attaining a ceasefire and durable settlement."
Peter Rough, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, also argued that the first round "didn't produce a strategic breakthrough and is more interesting procedurally in that it put Russian and Ukrainian negotiators face-to-face."
"Russia was just going through the motions of talks — showing up and issuing a set of demands before going home," Mathers said. "It was striking that the team for the talks with Ukraine was composed of more junior people than the team sent for talks with the U.S. weeks earlier — this was almost certainly a calculated insult to the Ukrainians."
Read also: 'There we go again' — For war-weary Europe, Trump-Putin call yet another signal to 'wake up'
Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said on May 28 that Ukraine had submitted its memorandum on proposed ceasefire terms to Russia.
Ukraine's proposed memorandum to Russia includes provisions for a ceasefire on land, in the air, and at sea, to be monitored by international partners, The New York Times (NYT) reported on May 30, citing an unnamed senior Ukrainian official.
During the Istanbul talks, Russia also promised to submit a memorandum outlining its ceasefire conditions to Ukraine. However, the Kremlin has been dragging its feet on presenting the document.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced on May 23 that Moscow would present the memorandum immediately after the completion of the prisoner exchange between the two countries. However, the memo was not submitted after the exchange was completed on May 25.
Lavrov announced on May 28 that the Russian memorandum would be unveiled during the next round of negotiations set for June 2 in Istanbul.
"Russia is dragging its feet for two reasons," Kupchan said. "First, Russia has been advancing on the battlefield, which encourages the Kremlin to keep the war going. Second, Putin has not yet given up on his maximalist war aims and seeks to subjugate as much of Ukraine as possible. He will stop only when Ukraine has the military wherewithal to stop him, which is why Europe and the United States need to keep the arms flowing."
Meanwhile, Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham, argued that Russia wants "to limit the time that Ukraine has to consider the Russian demands and discuss them with their allies in Europe and the U.S."
"Dragging out the negotiations process buys Russia time for further advances on the battlefield and improving and shoring up their position ahead of a ceasefire agreement that will most likely freeze the front lines," he added.
Read also: Bracing for more Russian attacks, an anxious Ukraine waits for Trump to do… something
During the talks, Russia has consistently stuck to its maximalist demands and refused to make concessions.
Putin said in March that Russia would agree to a ceasefire only if there was a ban on Ukrainian mobilization and training of troops and a halt on Western military aid for Kyiv. Experts argue that these conditions are tantamount to demands for Ukraine's surrender.
Vasily Nebenzya, Russia's envoy to the United Nations, reiterated the demands on May 30, saying that Russia would only consider a ceasefire if Kyiv stopped receiving Western weapons and halted mobilization.
During the Istanbul talks, Russia also demanded that Ukraine recognize the illegally annexed territories as Russian, withdraw from the Kyiv-controlled parts of these regions, and adopt a neutral status, according to a source in the President's Office, who spoke with the Kyiv Independent on conditions of anonymity.
Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimea peninsula in 2014. The Kremlin also announced the illegal annexation of Ukraine's Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts in 2022 despite only partially controlling them.
Reuters reported on May 28, citing its sources, that Putin was demanding a written pledge by NATO not to accept more Eastern European members and the lifting of several sanctions as conditions for ending Russia's war in Ukraine.
Read also: 'Conditions for Ukraine's surrender' — Why Putin's demands for ceasefire make no sense
As Russia remained intransigent, Trump has continued his usual rhetoric, alternating between praise for Putin and frustration with Russia's actions.
During a phone call with Trump on May 19, Putin again rejected an unconditional ceasefire. Despite this, Trump said the call "went very well" and once again refused to impose sanctions against Russia.
In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration with Russia.
Some of Trump's critical statements followed massive Russian drone and missile strikes from May 24 to May 26 — one of Russia's largest and deadliest aerial attacks during the war.
On May 25, Trump said that Putin had gone "absolutely" crazy and warned that if he didn't stop his actions, it could bring about the collapse of Russia.
At the same time, Trump also lashed out at Zelensky, saying that he "is doing his country no favors by talking the way he does" — an apparent reference to Zelensky's criticism of Russia and of Washington's failure to crack down on Putin.
On May 27, Trump also admitted that "if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia.'
Trump has also repeatedly threatened to impose sanctions on Russia but no action followed.
The U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would impose 500% tariffs on imports from countries purchasing Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other products.
The Senate is expected to "start moving" the bill next week, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on May 30.
However, it is still unclear if Trump will back the bill.
"Trump appears to be getting frustrated with Putin and may be arriving at the conclusion that Putin is playing for time rather than working with Trump to end the war," Kupchan said. "The massive Russian air attacks that keep coming reinforce the view that Russia is not negotiating in good faith."
At the same time, there is no indication that Trump's threats will lead to any action.
"One of the constants in Trump's behavior has been his tendency to be sympathetic to Russia's positions and arguments and to regard Putin with respect," Mathers said. "Despite brief expressions of frustration and irritation, Trump always seems to return to his default setting of finding Russia's arguments persuasive and being eager to get rid of obstacles to doing business with and in Russia."
Wolff also argued that "for Trump, a deal with Russia, any deal, is really important."
"Too much pressure on Putin, in Trump's mind, is probably counter-productive to get a deal done," he added. "By contrast, pressure on Ukraine seems like an easier option, including because the U.S. has, or at least thinks it has, more leverage over Kyiv."
Read also: As Russia refuses to accept ceasefire, will Trump pressure Moscow?
As Trump remains reluctant to punish Russia, the Kremlin appears to have no incentives to agree to a ceasefire.
Analysts are skeptical about the possibility of a breakthrough during the second round of talks.
"Russia does not yet seem prepared to make the concessions and compromises needed to get a ceasefire," Kupchan said. "There are as yet no signs that Putin is negotiating in good faith and making a sincere effort to end the war."
Michael O'Hanlon, director of research in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, said that "we will need to turn up the pressure on Putin in several ways for talks to have any real chance of success."
"I don't expect much from June 2," he added. "President Trump is learning that Putin is the problem but hasn't fully accepted or internalized that fact yet."
Analysts agree that the main problem is Trump's failure to realize that sanctions would be the only realistic way to push the Kremlin towards a ceasefire.
'Putin seems to believe that time is on Russia's side and that Trump will not impose serious constraints on Russia, so Russia is free to demand preconditions that make a ceasefire impossible,' Richard Betts, professor emeritus of war and peace studies at Columbia University, told the Kyiv Independent.
'This might change if Russia suffers some defeats on the battlefield, or political support for Putin within Russia drops, but there is no evidence yet that either of those conditions is likely to occur soon.'
Read also: 'Dangerous and cruel' — Trump's reported Crimea proposal sparks horror among Ukraine's lawmakers
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
Gold retreats from near four-week peak as dollar ticks up
Gold prices fell on Tuesday, retreating from near a four-week high, as a modest rise in the dollar weighed on the metal, although uncertainty over the U.S.-China trade agreement kept investors cautious and limited the bullion's decline. Spot gold fell 0.3% to $3,369.98 an ounce, as of 0249 GMT, after hitting its highest level since May 8 earlier in the session. U.S. gold futures were steady at $3,390. The metal gained about 2.7% in the previous session, marking its strongest daily performance in more than three weeks. "Dollar recovered slightly and gold came down so it has been inversely correlated at this point of time," said Brian Lan, managing director at GoldSilver Central, Singapore. However, gold is still closely tracking developments around global trade, and while investors have slightly reduced their positions in gold it is not to the extent seen in previous instances when tensions appeared to ease, said Lan. The U.S. dollar index recovered slightly from a six-week low. U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will likely speak this week, White House said on Monday, days after Trump accused China of violating an agreement to roll back tariffs and trade restrictions. U.S. tariffs on imported steel and aluminum are scheduled to double to 50% starting on Wednesday, coinciding with the Trump administration's deadline for countries to submit their best offers in trade negotiations. The European Commission said on Monday it would make a strong case this week for the U.S. to reduce or eliminate tariffs despite Trump's decision to double import duties on steel and aluminum. Meanwhile, Russia told Ukraine at peace talks on Monday that it would only agree to end the war if Kyiv gives up big new chunks of territory and accepts limits on the size of its army, according to a memorandum reported by Russian media. Elsewhere, spot silver fell 2.1% to $34.07 an ounce, platinum was steady at $1,062.46 and palladium was up 0.1% at $990.26.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commerce Secretary Lutnick outlines fast pace for U.S.-India trade talks under Trump's tariff approach
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, speaking at the 2025 U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF), outlined the future of U.S.-India trade ties, urging deeper economic cooperation in line with President Trump's tariff-driven push. "Earlier countries get a better deal. That's the way it is," Lutnick remarked during his keynote address at the USISPF on Monday in Washington D.C. "Those who come in, you know, July 4th to July 9th, there's just going to be a pile. But those who are earlier—and I think India's trying hard to be one of the earlier countries, which I appreciate." The commerce secretary acknowledged the unusually rapid timeline the administration is pursuing in contrast to traditional multi-year negotiations. "These kinds of deals used to take 2 or 3 years, and we're trying to get them done in a month, which is, you know, just not the ordinary DNA of trading relationships between countries," he said. India Has Been Open To Mkaing Big Trade Progress, Kevin Hassett Says Lutnick argued that the administration is not advocating for sweeping concessions from India, but "reasonable access to the markets of India." Read On The Fox Business App "We would like our businesses to have reasonable access to the markets of India," he said. "Now, it's not going to be everything and it's not going to be everywhere. But we want to have the trade deficit reduced." "Now in exchange for that, what India is going to want is they're going to get certain key markets that they are going to want to make sure that they have special access to the American marketplace," he said. "And so that's the tradeoff." He said that ongoing talks between India and the U.S. are in a "very good place." "We've managed, I think, to be in a very, very good place, and you should expect a deal between the United States and India in the not-too-distant future, because I think we found a place that really works for both countries," he said. In a Monday evening TruthSocial post, Trump doubled down on his core trade doctrine: "If other Countries are allowed to use Tariffs against us, and we're not allowed to counter them, quickly and nimbly, with Tariffs against them, our Country doesn't have, even a small chance, of Economic survival." President Trump, India's Modi To Tackle Trade, Tariff Tensions At High-stakes Meeting In April, Trump imposed a 27% reciprocal tariff on most Indian exports to pressure India into lowering its tariffs. While strategic sectors like pharmaceuticals were exempt, industries such as textiles and machinery were affected. Click Here To Read More On Fox Business India has since avoided retaliation, opting instead to negotiate with the administration to ease the article source: Commerce Secretary Lutnick outlines fast pace for U.S.-India trade talks under Trump's tariff approach Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Black America Web
33 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Tulsa's 1st Black Mayor Proposes Reparations Plan For Descendants Of Race Massacre, But Will It Work In Trump's America?
Source: UCG / Getty Tulsa, Oklahoma's first Black mayor has proposed a reparations plan (of sorts) for the descendants of one of the most notorious and horrific race massacres in America's history, but can such a proposal come to fruition in a state that has, multiple times, denied reparations to the actual survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre? According to the Associated Press, the reparations proposal, which Mayor Monroe Nichols won't even officially call a reparations plan due to how politically polarizing the term is, wouldn't provide direct payments to citizens. Instead, Nichols characterized his proposal as one that would put the Tulsa community on the 'road to repair' by creating a private charitable trust with a goal to secure $105 million in assets, including $60 million 'to go toward improving buildings and revitalizing the city's north side,' AP reported. The mayor said his plan wouldn't require city council approval, but the city council would have to approve the transfer of any city-owned assets to the trust. 'For 104 years, the Tulsa Race Massacre has been a stain on our city's history,' Nichols said Sunday, announcing the proposal to an audience of several hundred people at the Greenwood Cultural Center, which is located in a district of North Tulsa that was decimated by the white mob in 1921. 'The massacre was hidden from history books, only to be followed by the intentional acts of redlining, a highway built to choke off economic vitality and the perpetual underinvestment of local, state and federal governments.' 'Now it's time to take the next big steps to restore,' he declared. 'The Greenwood District at its height was a center of commerce,' Nichols told AP. 'So what was lost was not just something from North Tulsa or the Black community. It actually robbed Tulsa of an economic future that would have rivaled anywhere else in the world.' Nichols, who signed an executive order earlier this year recognizing June 1 as Tulsa Race Massacre Observance Day, acknowledged that a major hurdle that could get in the way of his plan is the war on all things diversity, equity and inclusion waged by the administration of President Donald Trump. 'The fact that this lines up with a broader national conversation is a tough environment, but it doesn't change the work we have to do,' he said. Source: UCG / Getty Of course, Nichols would be right to be wary about Trump's overreaching administration medling in his city's affairs over nonsensical (and racist as hell) DEI concerns. This is, after all, the same administration that recently ended a wastewater settlement for a mostly Black Alabama town, falsely calling it 'environmental justice as viewed through a distorting, DEI lens,' simply because environmental racism was addressed in the reaching of the settlement. Even more recently, Trump expressed his intention to end a Biden-era program to expand high-speed internet to underserved communities, including rural areas, falsely claiming it provides 'woke handouts based on race,' despite the fact that poor people from rural communites could absolutely be of any race (and would also include a significant portion of his MAGA cultists). But if Nichols is worried about Trump putting the kibosh on his proposal, he should be doubly worried about what his own state government might do. Last year, the Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with lower courts in dismissing a lawsuit or reparations filed by 110-year-olds Viola Ford Fletcher and Lessie Benningfield Randle, the two remaining survivors of the massacre. Here's what I wrote about that previously: None of it is terribly surprising, of course. The same year the lawsuit seeking reparations was filed, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed into law another Republican white fragility bill prohibiting teachings in K-12 schools that include Critical Race Theory, a college-level academic framework that is not taught in K-12 schools, as well as any other race-based curriculum that causes 'discomfort, guilt, anguish or psychological distress' to (white) students. (Oklahoma wants to be Florida so bad.) Then, in 2022, Stitt called for an investigation into Tulsa Public Schools after claims that the school district violated the state's anti-CRT law, which was denounced by both the Oklahoma City Public Schools Board of Education and the Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial Commission, of which Stitt had the caucasity to be a member of until he was booted from the commission for signing the law that would certainly whitewash the manner in which the Tulsa massacre could be taught—in Tulsa. So yeah — good luck to Mayor Nichols, and we hope his bare-minimum proposal becomes a reality in Tulsa, but he might be fighting an uphill battle in a state that, much like the current federal government, will always prioritize white nationalism, white supremacy and white people's eternally fragile feelings over racial justice. SEE ALSO: Op-Ed: Misogynoir Is Why Many Black Women Don't Care That Telvin Osborne's Killer Won't Be Charged Trump Admin To Settle Suit Claiming Program For 'Disadvantaged' Businesses Only Serves 'Women And Certain Minorities' SEE ALSO Tulsa's 1st Black Mayor Proposes Reparations Plan For Descendants Of Race Massacre, But Will It Work In Trump's America? was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
