On 18 March 2025, US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a two-hour phone call about Russia’s war against Ukraine.
What followed was a masterclass in strategic negotiation from Putin, who managed to limit concessions, maintain his maximalist demands, and gain international legitimacy – all while the United States retreated from its original positions.
Dreaded in Ukraine, the call followed significant diplomatic groundwork, including Ukraine’s agreement to a 30-day comprehensive ceasefire during talks in Saudi Arabia the previous week – a major concession that President Zelensky made after significant American pressure.
Rather than reciprocating with a comparable concession, Putin rejected the comprehensive ceasefire proposal. Instead, the talks resulted in a much narrower agreement: a 30-day pause in attacks on energy infrastructure only, while combat operations along the 1,100-kilometer front line would continue unabated. Even this limited agreement was characterized differently by Moscow and Washington, with the Kremlin specifying only “energy infrastructure” while the White House initially claimed a broader “energy and infrastructure” ceasefire.
The outcome left many observers concluding that Putin had outmaneuvered Trump in this opening round of diplomatic engagement. “This is the one area where a cease-fire would benefit Russia more than Ukraine, given Kyiv’s expanding capacity for long-range drone attacks on Russian energy targets,” noted Alexander Vershbow, former US ambassador to NATO and Russia and distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council.
The talks happened just days after Ukraine’s largest-yet drone attack on Russia took out Moscow’s largest refinery, endangering up to 50% of the Russian capital’s fuel supply, a case in point of Ukraine’s growing strategic capabilities.
What was actually agreed upon?
The concrete result of the Putin-Trump call was extremely limited. Mark Cancian and Maria Snegovaya from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) highlight that “there is no 30-day ceasefire as had been discussed previously and as Ukraine had agreed to.” Instead, Russia only agreed to cease attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days, while Ukraine is expected to reciprocate by halting its increasingly effective drone campaign against Russian oil refineries and energy facilities.
Talks about implementing the energy infrastructure ceasefire are expected to continue in Saudi Arabia, with Ukraine sending “a technical team – military, energy specialists” rather than political representatives, according to President Zelensky.
Technical negotiations on a possible maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea were also agreed to, but with no firm commitments or timelines.
Meanwhile, Putin’s core demands remained unchanged. The Kremlin readout emphasized that a resolution to the conflict would require “a complete cessation of foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv” – effectively demanding Ukraine’s unilateral disarmament.
The stark contrast between Ukraine’s unconditional agreement to a comprehensive ceasefire and Putin’s minimal concession of an energy-only pause demonstrates how effectively the Russian president controlled the negotiation’s terms. Trump, having pressured Ukraine to make significant concessions first, was left with little leverage when Putin refused to reciprocate in kind.
Why this limited agreement benefits Putin
Experts across Western and Ukrainian sources identify several ways Putin gained from this outcome. Far from making any meaningful concessions, Putin secured multiple strategic victories from the talks, with Trump seemingly accepting terms that primarily benefit Russia:
1. Protection from Ukrainian drone strikes
The agreement shields Russia’s energy infrastructure – a vulnerable target of Ukraine’s increasingly effective long-range drone campaign – while preserving Russia’s military initiative on the battlefield.
And while Olga Khakova, Deputy director for European energy security at the Global Energy Center, notes that the pause will offer Ukraine’s battered energy sector some reprieve, Russia’s benefits could be larger.
“During these 30 days, Russia will be able to increase weapons production and, if necessary, resume large-scale strikes. Ukraine, on the other hand, will not be able to fully restore damaged energy infrastructure during this time,” Ukrainian expert Vladimir Sokov told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
2. International rehabilitation
“The Kremlin is desperately trying to return to the global economy, even despite the war,” Ukrainian expert Mustafa Nayyem noted in his analysis of the Kremlin’s statement: easing sanctions is one of the Kremlin’s immediate aims. The Putin-Trump call furthered this goal by treating Russia as a diplomatic equal and focusing on broader issues beyond Ukraine.
Significantly, the call went beyond Ukraine — a move that analysts saw as Putin’s achievement in decoupling Russia-US relations from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. PBS News notes that “Putin used the call to shift the discussion away from a ceasefire to other global issues,” including “the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation” and “enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability.”
Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Endowment stated to PBS News that “the most significant outcome was the implicit acceptance of US-Russia dialogue as between equals,” giving Putin “a chance to pivot away from the war in Ukraine and engage more broadly about global issues, drawing a line under Washington’s past efforts to cast him as an international pariah.”
Stanovaya further notes that “Moscow is trying to neutralize the United States in geopolitical terms by normalizing bilateral relations with it” and that Russia’s international toxicity is decreasing to the point that Putin and Trump have apparently agreed to organize hockey matches between Russian and American players.”
3. Stalling tactics that serve Russian interests
Ukrainian political analyst Vadym Denysenko identifies Putin’s strategy as playing a “game of buying time” that Trump has been forced to accept. “Putin, as expected, is playing a game of buying time. And Trump was forced to agree to this game today,” Denysenko writes in Glavcom.
Sergiy Sydorenko of European Pravda notes that “Putin successfully controlled the narrative and terms” of the agreement, forcing the US side to quickly recalibrate to match Russia’s narrower interpretation of what was agreed upon.
Why did Trump accept these terms?
Trump’s acceptance of such limited progress reveals a significant diplomatic victory for Putin. The Russian president effectively outmaneuvered his American counterpart, who appeared unprepared for Putin’s negotiating tactics. Experts suggest several reasons for Trump’s weak position:
- Political pressure for quick results The Trump administration promised progress on ending the Ukraine conflict within its first 100 days, creating time pressure that Putin could exploit.
- Desire to claim any diplomatic win Trump presented the call as successful despite its limited results. His special envoy Steve Witkoff called the conversation “grander” than it was, and claimed Putin was moving toward a broader peace deal.
- Focus beyond Ukraine The White House readout emphasized global cooperation on the Middle East, Iran, and bilateral relations – suggesting Trump may value these issues over a maximalist position on Ukraine.
Serhiy Sydorenko’s analysis in European Pravda is particularly blunt, stating the talks “certainly did not become successful for the US president, rather the opposite: Donald Trump once again publicly demonstrated that he is unable to impose on Putin even those decisions about which he was confident of success.”
Putin’s diplomatic mastery: controlling the narrative
Perhaps the clearest evidence of Putin outmaneuvering Trump comes from analyzing how quickly the Russian interpretation of events became dominant after the call. While Trump initially claimed broader achievements, the actual terms were rapidly narrowed to match Russia’s version of events:
1. Differing views on the scope of the ceasefire
Immediately following the call, the White House and Kremlin released contradictory accounts of what the ceasefire would cover:
- White House interpretation: On 18 March, Trump told the Washington Examiner that Russia agreed to “an immediate ceasefire on energy and infrastructure.” US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff similarly stated that the temporary ceasefire covers “energy and infrastructure in general.”
- Kremlin interpretation: Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov clarified on 19 March that the temporary ceasefire only applies to “energy infrastructure facilities” and declined to comment on the White House statement that mentioned “energy and infrastructure.”
Sergiy Sydorenko of European Pravda highlights how this initial discrepancy was quickly resolved in Russia’s favor: “Throughout Wednesday, the Americans showed that they are ready to agree with the Russian vision. Steve Witkoff, in an interview with Bloomberg, adjusted the American position and acknowledged: Putin promised to stop strikes only on energy facilities.”
2. Conflicting claims about foreign aid discussions
Another major contradiction emerged regarding whether military aid to Ukraine was discussed:
- Trump’s claim: The US president stated on 18 March that he and Putin “did not talk about aid at all.”
- Kremlin’s counter-claim: On March 19, Peskov asserted that Putin and Trump “touched upon” the topic of continuing military aid to Ukraine in their call. The Kremlin readout explicitly stated that Putin called for a halt to all foreign military aid to Ukraine.
Unchanged Russian maximalist demands
1. Territorial demands
Russia’s territorial demands haven’t shifted despite the diplomatic engagement, ISW notes, as the Kremlin continues demanding recognition of Russia’s illegal annexation of approximately 20% of Ukraine’s territory, including areas Russia doesn’t fully control.
ISW highlights that Russian President Vladimir Putin stated at a private meeting with Russian business leaders that “Russia would not claim Odesa and other territories if unspecified countries recognize Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts and Crimea as part of Russia.”
Serhiy Sydorenko of European Pravda writes that the Kremlin wants the West to recognize these territories as Russian as part of a peace agreement on Ukraine — a premise that undermines the very premise of meaningful peace talks, as Ukraine will never accept this demand.
2. Demilitarization demands persist
According to the Kremlin’s readout, Putin’s requirements for solving the war included “complete cessation of foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv,” which, as the Center for Strategic International studies noted, suggests that Putin plans to stick to his original demands calling for Ukraine’s “demilitarization.”
This would leave Ukraine completely defenseless to future Russian aggression; as Atlantic Council’s Peter Dickinson writes, “Putin continues to insist that peace will only be possible once Ukraine has been disarmed and left at his mercy.”
Notably, the US has rejected the Russian demands for halting intelligence sharing, which was resumed only on 13 March following a spat between Zelenskyy and Trump in the Oval Office, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed during a press briefing.
European allies signal alarm
Trump’s seeming inability to secure meaningful concessions from Putin has alarmed European allies, who see the limited deal as evidence of the US president being outplayed by his Russian counterpart.
Atlantic Council fellow Justina Budginaite-Froehly notes that front-line countries are not convinced by Putin’s limited concessions: “The defense ministers of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia announced their plan to pull out of the Ottawa Convention preventing the use of anti-personnel landmines. With this decision, they are signaling their readiness to defend their territories from potential Russian aggression by all means.”
According to European Pravda, Finland’s president has reportedly “departed from diplomatic principles” to declare unacceptable all possible restrictions for Ukraine that Putin is promoting in negotiations with the US. This position carries special weight given Finland’s recent NATO accession despite sharing a border with Russia.
Professor Sam Greene of King’s College London offered a stark assessment of the broader diplomatic process, stating it was “a train wreck by design. The quiet conversation since Munich has been about setting Ukraine up for a fall.”
What happens next?
Carnegie’s Tatiana Stanovaya predicts: “There is every chance that this rapprochement will eventually hit a dead end, with nothing to show but a couple of local projects and close to zero progress in Ukraine. Even that outcome, however, will be considered a good result for the Kremlin.”
CSIS analysts warn of “Putin prolonging such talks indefinitely while providing the US government with something to present as an achievement (such as a halt to attacks on energy infrastructure), without any significant breakthroughs occurring as Russia continues to carve off portions of Ukraine piece by piece.”
The fundamental challenge remains bridging the vast gap between Russian and Ukrainian positions. Putin demands Ukraine’s effective disarmament and acceptance of territorial losses, while Ukraine seeks the restoration of its territorial integrity and security guarantees.
The first round of Trump-Putin talks has firmly established Putin as the more skilled negotiator who achieved his primary objectives: limiting damage to Russian energy infrastructure, gaining international legitimacy, avoiding any commitment to a comprehensive ceasefire, maintaining military pressure on Ukraine, and preserving his maximalist territorial and demilitarization demands. Meanwhile, Trump walked away with far less than what he publicly promised – a stark demonstration of Putin’s strategic victory in this opening diplomatic exchange.
As Atlantic Council’s Alexander Vershbow concluded: “Putin evidently doesn’t want to say ‘no’ to Donald Trump, but his demands are the Russian leader’s way of rejecting the proposal without saying so. Hopefully, Trump will not accept ‘no’ for an answer and will continue to insist that Russia agree to a full cease-fire as originally proposed—on the Black Sea, on land, and in the air.”
