On Tuesday 18 March 18 2025, US President Donald Trump is scheduled to hold a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss critical issues pertaining to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. President Trump announced this late in the evening on Sunday 16 March 2025, and he has indicated that the discussions will focus on territorial matters and the control of key energy infrastructures, notably power plants. This dialogue represents a pivotal moment in the pursuit of a ceasefire and potential peace agreement between the conflicting parties.
Background and Context
The conflict in Ukraine has persisted at its current intensity since Russia’s second (full scale) invasion in February 2022, leading to significant territorial disputes and humanitarian crises. Recent developments have seen intensified diplomatic efforts to broker a ceasefire. Notably, Ukraine has agreed to a US-proposed 30-day ceasefire, contingent upon Russia’s concurrence. President Trump seeks President Putin’s support for this proposal, aiming to halt hostilities and lay the groundwork for comprehensive peace negotiations. President Putin has set out a series of "conditions" for such a ceasefire, which suggests that he is keen not just for there to be a temporary ceasefire but that all outstanding points of importance to Russia for a lasting ceasefire be addressed as part of a ceasefire agreement. This suggests that President Putin is interested in an indefinite or permanent ceasefire agreement - or at least to give the impression of being so, to avoid the wrath of President Trump who has virtually unlimited economic and military resources at his disposal to deploy against Russia.
President Trump observed last night that considerable work had been done over the weekend, suggesting that a lot had been provisionally agreed. Trump's Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, has refused to comment on the contents of the negotiations he has had with President Putin and his advisors over the weekend, presumably not wishing to derail the negotiations by revealing the details of any partial agreement already reached through media, domestic politicians and others angrily denouncing any partially agreed terms. The Kremlin has likewise been silent, confirming only that Presidents Trump and Putin will indeed be having a telephone call on Tuesday and not making any observations about what will be discussed. Presumably there are sticking points in the negotiations which it is felt that only Presidents Trump and Putin, leaders of the world's two biggest nuclear powers, can resolve between themselves through direct discussions.
Key Discussion Points
1. Territorial Adjustments: The leaders are expected to deliberate on specific territorial concessions to facilitate a ceasefire. While exact details remain undisclosed, there is speculation that discussions may involve areas such as Kostiantynivka and regions around Pokrovsk, particularly if (as is discussed below) Russia is to cede control of any occupied territories around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and the Nova Kakhovka hydroelectric plant to Ukraine. Russia might be asking for a quid pro quo adjustment. Any territorial adjustments of this kind would require careful consideration of the geopolitical and humanitarian implications to ensure a just and lasting resolution.
Presumably the total Ukrainian evacuation of the Kursk region of Russia is also a key Russian demand; and given recent Ukrainian losses in that region (including loss of control of the town of Sudzha, whose importance is discussed here) that would not be objectionable to Ukraine. Indeed it might save the lives or liberty of the remaining Ukrainian troops situated in the Kursk region of Russia.
2. Control and Operation of Power Plants:
A focal point of the talks will be the management of critical energy infrastructures, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant—the largest in Europe. Ensuring the safe operation of such facilities is paramount, given their significance to regional energy security and potential environmental risks. Discussions may explore mechanisms for joint oversight or international monitoring to prevent further escalation and ensure compliance with safety standards.
Alternatively Ukraine may be granted access to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant at Enerhodar, currently in Russian-occupied territory, as under Russian occupation the operations of the plant have ceased completely and ROSATOM, the Russian state nuclear operations agency, has been unable to operate the plant effectively and supervise the regular Ukrainian employees. It makes no sense for Russia to retain control of a gigantic nuclear power plant facility it cannot operate; it is just a liability. Therefore Ukraine may be granted control over the access road from Zaporizhzhia to Enerhodar, and control of the Enerhodar site itself for reconstruction and renovation purposes, possibly in exchange for a share in the energy the plant produces once it has resumed functioning.
The same issue applies for the hydroelectric power plant at Nova Kakhovka, that ceased to function in June 2023 when the Russians blew an 85 metre hole in the dam that supported the power plant. This is a useless asset for Russia as it is not functional and carries environmental risks in its current condition, as we have previously discussed. Therefore it makes sense for Russia to hand over this asset to Ukraine for repair and resumption of operations, but Russia may be asking for a share in the energy produced - plus of course security guarantees, which, as with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, would require withdrawal of Ukrainian troops behind a demilitarised zone.
Finally one point of contention may be the coal fired power plant at Kurakhove, in the Pokrovsk region in southern Donbas. Kurakovke fell to the Russian Armed Forces after fierce fighting in early January 2025, and its power station was presumably damaged beyond use. The Russians may seek to restore it to operational condition, to support coal and steel exploitation in the occupied territories of the Donbas. To achieve this, Russia may seek security guarantees, as the current front line is only a few kilometres west of Kurakhove. Therefore they may seek a demilitarised zone in the Pokrovsk region of the Donetsk region.
3. Security Guarantees and Neutrality: Russia has articulated demands for “ironclad” guarantees that Ukraine will remain neutral and be excluded from NATO membership. These stipulations are likely to be central to the negotiations, as they pertain to Russia’s security concerns and the broader strategic balance in Eastern Europe. Crafting assurances that address these concerns while respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty will be a delicate aspect of the dialogue. Trump is likely to extend an assurance that he will veto Ukraine's membership of NATO during the term of his Presidency, but in practical terms he cannot bind the actions of future US administrations. Any path for Ukraine's membership of NATO would take more than four years in any event, so this should not be a contentious issue. No written agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO can be enforced as a practical matter after the end of the Trump administration, and Ukraine's European allies will presumably provide private assurances to Ukraine that Ukraine's path towards NATO membership will continue at an appropriate juncture.
4. Ceasefire Implementation and Monitoring: Establishing a credible and enforceable ceasefire mechanism will be crucial. This may involve deploying neutral peacekeeping forces or international observers to monitor compliance and address violations. The effectiveness of such measures would hinge on the impartiality and capability of the monitoring entities, as well as the commitment of both parties to uphold the ceasefire terms.
In this regard it is noteworthy that on Sunday 16 March 2025 President Macron of France declared that a European-led peacekeeping force, perhaps part of a "coalition of the willing" discussed in a video conference led by British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer between sympathetic leaders of European and other countries towards Ukraine on Saturday 15 March, and due to be resumed in a meeting of military leaders to discuss the practicalities of coordinating a peacekeeping force this Thursday 20 March, could enter Ukraine without needing Russia's consent. However by this morning, Monday 17 March, he had resiled from this position, conceding that a European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine could be present only with the agreement of the Russian Federation. This may indicate that his prior suggestion was derailing the private US-Russia talks taking place on Sunday. It may also indicate that Russia is in principle willing to accept a non-NATO peacekeeping force, as is essential in any demilitarised zone at the end of a war, and it may also suggest that the terms of operation of a peacekeeping force have been agreed in principle because this issue was not stated by President Trump as being on the agenda of his anticipated telephone call with President Putin.
5. Humanitarian Access and Reconstruction: Ensuring unhindered humanitarian access to affected regions and planning for post-conflict reconstruction are essential components of the peace process. Discussions may encompass frameworks for international aid delivery, infrastructure rehabilitation, and support for displaced populations. Coordinated efforts in these areas are vital for fostering stability and rebuilding trust among communities. Presumably Russia has no objections in principle to such initiatives taking place within free Ukraine; the level of access of western humanitarian and reconstruction projects to Russian-occupied Ukraine, and issues such as the ability of civilians to cross the line of control, remain opaque. Whatever may have been discussed over the weekend about these subjects, we do not know.
Implications and Prospects
The outcome of the Trump-Putin call holds significant implications for the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict and regional stability. A successful dialogue could pave the way for a formal ceasefire, easing tensions and creating a conducive environment for comprehensive peace talks. However challenges persist, including aligning the strategic interests of the involved parties, addressing mutual distrust, and ensuring that any agreements are sustainable and enforceable.
The United States is currently staying very quiet about the status of the international negotiations underway, whereas Europe is being vocal in its support for Ukraine. Nevertheless there can be little doubt that despite their differing perspectives, they are coordinating their efforts to achieve a sustainable ceasesfire. On both sides of the Atlantic, the international community will closely monitor developments in the negotiations, as the conflict’s resolution bears consequences for global security dynamics and the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The engagement of all key stakeholders (even if behind the scenes) and adherence to international law will be pivotal in achieving a peaceful and just resolution to the conflict.