As of 1 April 2025, peace negotiations involving the United States, Europe, Ukraine, and Russia remain complex and multifaceted, influenced by ongoing battlefield developments, diplomatic manoeuvres, and economic considerations.
Battlefield Developments and Ceasefire Status
Despite diplomatic efforts, active conflict persists in Ukraine. Recent Russian shelling in Zaporizhzhia resulted in civilian casualties, with one person killed and five injured. Additionally, a drone attack in Kharkiv injured three individuals. These incidents underscore the continuing humanitarian toll of the conflict.
The proposed maritime ceasefire remains contentious. Moscow has rejected a 30-day general ceasefire, instead proposing a Black Sea-specific cessation with conditions that have yet to be fully disclosed. This selective approach has drawn criticism from European leaders, who accuse Russia of employing delaying tactics to extract concessions.
European Leaders’ Stance and Accountability for War Crimes
European Union foreign ministers have expressed frustration with Russia’s perceived stalling. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas emphasised Russia’s lack of interest in genuine peace, while Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski advocated for setting a deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot urged Russia to clearly state its peace intentions to the United States, while Russia remains silent.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to demand accountability for alleged Russian war crimes, highlighting the importance of justice in any peace framework. This insistence adds complexity to negotiations, as it introduces non-negotiable elements related to human rights and international law. This is far more important to Europe than to the United States, as all relevant European countries are parties to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court; and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been indicted by the Court for actions tantamount to genocide for forcibly removing native Ukrainian language speakers, in particular children, to other parts of Russia. This is a war crime under the Rome Statute; and it is hard to see how the extradition of the Russian President to the International Criminal Court can be part of a ceasefire agreement.
US-Ukraine Minerals Agreement
President Donald Trump has urged Ukraine to accept a revised US-Ukraine minerals deal. However as we have already discussed, the document in question is a preliminary template requiring detailed negotiations. Ukraine has indicated she will provide comments in the coming days, marking the beginning of an extensive process to finalise agreements between American and Ukrainian entities. These agreements will aim to facilitate significant US investment in Ukraine’s infrastructure and resource extraction industries, necessitating careful deliberation on profit-sharing and operational terms. Also seed funding will be required for initial geological and infrastructure surveys, and the relevant US contractors will need to be found and adequate provision made for their security, presumably via private US security contractors. So there is a huge amount of work to do, and such agreements typically have very long time spans to see a return on investment.
Ukraine is likely to agree the US-Ukraine minerals deal, because it is of benefit to Ukraine to see profits from extraction of her own natural resources and she needs foreign investment to do that. In principle the concept is uncontroversial, a common type of arrangement that exists all over the world. It is important that the US-Ukraine minerals deal is not politicised, because it is an effective way of drawing the United States into a ceasefire structure in Ukraine and is of benefit both to Ukraine in terms of improving her often impoverished or destroyed infrastructure and to her national budget; and of value to the investors who stand to reap profits from their long-term investments. Talks with specific investors need to be advanced, as well as site visits and preliminary technical work. The legal work that allows substantive operations to begin will surely take months if not longer.
Russian Military Conscription and US Sanctions
The Kremlin has announced plans to conscript 160,000 troops by 15 July 2025, in her largest conscription campaign in 14 years. This move signals Russia’s intent to sustain military operations through the summer, potentially undermining peace efforts.
In response to stalled negotiations, President Trump has threatened additional sanctions on Russia, including imposing secondary tariffs of 25%-50% on buyers of Russian oil if President Putin does not cooperate on peace efforts. Conscripting 160,000 new soldiers is quite the opposite of cooperating, so additional sanctions, together with corresponding European measures, are surely now appropriate. These measures aim to pressure Russia economically to engage more constructively in negotiations. Such measures may require additional Congressional authority, which should be easy to obtain on a bipartisan basis; but the process of legislative drafting needs to begin immediately and we have no publicly available information about whether that process has begun yet.
European Peacekeeping Initiatives and Military Support
Discussions are underway regarding the deployment of a European peacekeeping force to Ukraine, possibly beginning with a small force of say 20,000 troops (potentially some 10,000 from the United Kingdom and 10,000 from France) and then other countries adding troop contributions in due course. The Ukrainian government may invite such a force irrespective of a formal ceasefire, emphasising the need for security and stability. There is no reason in international law why Ukraine cannot do this, and by far the greater majority of Ukraine is sufficiently safe to permit those troops' presence in the country without significant danger. Concurrently, countries like Sweden have announced substantial military aid packages to Ukraine, with Sweden’s contribution totalling 16 billion Swedish kronor (slightly less than EUR 1.5 billion).
Importance of US-Europe Cooperation
Cooperation between the United States and Europe is crucial to achieving a sustainable ceasefire. Unified diplomatic strategies, coordinated sanctions, and collective support for Ukraine enhance the prospects of compelling Russia to engage in meaningful negotiations. Conversely, divisions between Western allies could be exploited by Russia to weaken the negotiating position of Ukraine and its supporters.
Outlook for a Ceasefire
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a US-based think tank analysing military conflicts, assesses that a general ceasefire is unlikely within the next three weeks. Given current dynamics, including Russia’s military conscription plans and ongoing battlefield engagements, a ceasefire may not materialise until late summer or beyond. Achieving this will require sustained diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and military support coordinated between the US and European nations. It could be achieved more quickly, but only if the United States and Europe are hasty in coordinating strong increases in sanctions on Russia.
In conclusion, while multiple diplomatic channels are active, the path to peace in Ukraine remains fraught with challenges. Continued collaboration between the United States and Europe, coupled with unwavering support for Ukraine, is essential to navigate the complexities of negotiations and to move toward a durable resolution.