On 30 April 2025, the Kremlin reiterated its readiness to negotiate with Ukraine. Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow was open to dialogue without preconditions, but insisted that negotiations should be conducted directly with Kyiv, not through Washington. The statement came against the backdrop of Russia’s proposal to declare a three-day ceasefire from 8 to 10 May, timed to coincide with Victory Day.
Ukraine’s reaction was restrained. On 30 April, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the initiative a ‘manipulation’, emphasising: ‘To end the war, we do not need to wait for 8 May. We need to stop the strikes, stop the killings, and then look for a solution through negotiations.’ His position reflects Kyiv’s consistent demand for no negotiations without a cessation of hostilities by the Russian Federation.
At the same time, there are shifts in US diplomatic initiatives. Donald Trump’s Special Envoy Keith Kellogg announced Ukraine’s agreement last week in London on a list of 22 actions proposed by the US to end the war. He said that the discussions with Kyiv are conducted in a spirit of partnership, and now ‘it’s Russia’s turn’. He also criticised the proposal for a three-day truce, calling it ‘insufficient and tactical’.
The United States also announced the first direct arms export worth $50 million to Ukraine under the Trump administration along with a new strategic agreement with Ukraine on a joint development fund in the minerals sector. The agreement envisages both sides’ investments in projects in Ukraine, ranging from mining to infrastructure with profits reinvested in the country’s recovery over the first ten years. In this way, the US is not only supporting economic recovery, but also emphasising its role in the security architecture of the region’s future.
These actions, according to some Western observers, demonstrate the US readiness to act not only militarily, but also politically and economically. In this way, Washington is signalling that it sees Ukraine as a long-term partner, not just as an object of temporary assistance. At the same time, this may serve as a signal to Moscow that the prolongation of the conflict does not change the West’s overall policy of supporting Kyiv.
At the same time, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of President Trump, introduced the ‘Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025’ in Congress, which imposes sanctions against Russia to maximum and a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other products. According to Graham, the bill has already received support of 72 senators, which makes it possible to overcome a presidential veto. He stressed that the bill is aimed at putting pressure on Moscow in order to achieve peace, as well as sends a clear message that if there is no progress, the Russian economy will face a serious blow.
Meanwhile, Russia continues to engage in active hostilities. In recent weeks, Ukrainian cities have been suffered from massive russian attacks, which casts doubt on the sincerity of Russia’s intentions to end the war. On 29 April, Russia launched another drone attack on the city of Sumy, which resulted in civilian casualties. Such actions undermine the credibility of the Kremlin’s claims of peace and make Western partners view Russian initiatives as a tool for diplomatic play rather than a real settlement.
In this context, a key question arises: are Moscow’s statements of readiness for peace part of a diplomatic manoeuvre or a signal for serious negotiations? Anyway, Western partners should remain cautious in the conclusions they draw from russian simultaneous statements of openness to dialogue and continued shelling. Any peaceful settlement should be based on compliance with international law, not on the actual consolidation of the results of aggression.
A sustainable peace requires not only a ceasefire, but also clear accountability for its violations. Only on this basis can trust in dialogue as a tool for conflict resolution in Europe be restored.
Leave a Reply