According to the agreement reached between the United States and Ukraine, the U.S. will restore the transfer of intelligence information and military assistance to Ukraine. Additionally, Washington and Kyiv have agreed to an immediate 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine. The parties have also agreed to expedite the finalization of the critical minerals deal.
A key turning point in this process may arise if Russia and the U.S. impose their terms for potential agreements, with possible consequences. U.S. President Donald Trump views the security issues concerning Ukraine and Europe as pressures that will define both cooperation and competition with Russia.
Therefore, as long Russia and U.S. would not withdraw from their strategic goals, the front line will continue to be used as a maneuvering space to maximize gains.
In other words, neither the U.S. nor Russia has relented from their maximalist goals to dictate them to Kyiv.
Consequently, even if Russia responds positively to the ceasefire proposal, it will not serve as a reliable or long-term solution to stability on the front line. Because Russia and Ukraine are fully aware that a potential ceasefire would serve as an optimal time regime for the regrouping of forces, redeployment, and reconstitution of the army. Moreover, unless Washington manages the process as part of a negotiated deal with Moscow, Russia is likely to continue its advances on the Ukrainian front as the preferred course of action.
On the other hand, the logical and credible outcome of the U.S.-Ukraine agreement hinges upon the negotiations between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
It is probable that Trump will propose sharing a portion of the mineral deal, expected to be signed with Ukraine, with Russia as well. This proposal has been on the table from the outset, but in the current context of the U.S.’s ongoing aid campaign to Ukraine, the reception of such proposals may lose their character.
Putin, in turn, could expand Russia’s proposals for cooperation with the U.S. regarding the exploitation of natural resources in the occupied territories.
The prominence of U.S.-Russia negotiations within the current agenda and processes does not provide Kyiv with benefits regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity.
