By James Johnson
02/05/2025
The Kremlin reiterated its readiness to negotiate with Ukraine on 30 April. Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the Russian presidential administration, said that Moscow was open to dialogue without preconditions, but insisted that negotiations should be conducted directly with Kyiv and not through Washington. The statement was made against the background of the proposed truce between 8th and 10th May, the date of Victory Day.
Ukraine was restrained in responding to this. Speaking on 30 April, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the initiative ‘manipulated’ and insisted: ‘This is a manipulation: ‘To end the war, we don’t need to wait for May 8. We must stop the strikes, stop the killings and then look for a solution through negotiations. Its position echoes Kyiv’s consistent demand for no negotiations without the Russian Federation ceasing hostilities.
US diplomatic initiatives are shifting at the same time. Donald Trump`s envoy, Keith Kellogg, announced in London last week that Ukraine had agreed to a list of 22 measures suggested by the US to end the war. He said talks with Kyiv were being conducted in a spirit of partnership and “now it’s Russia’s turn”. He was also critical of the proposal for a three-day ceasefire, describing it as “inadequate and tactical”.
The US also announced the first direct $50m arms export to Ukraine under the Trump administration, and a new strategic agreement with Ukraine on a joint minerals development fund. The agreement calls for both sides to invest in projects in Ukraine, ranging from mining to infrastructure, with profits reinvested for the first ten years to help rebuild the country. In doing so, the US is not only helping to rebuild the economy, but underlining its role in the region’s future security architecture.
These actions demonstrate a willingness to act not only militarily, but also politically and economically, according to some Western observers. By doing so, Washington signals that it sees Ukraine as a long-term partner, not just a temporary aid recipient. 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 support for Kyiv.
Simultaneously, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of President Trump, introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 in Congress, which would impose maximum sanctions on Russia and a 500% tariff on imports from countries buying Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products. Graham said the bill already has the support of 72 senators, meaning a presidential veto could be overcome. He stressed that the aim of the bill is to put pressure on Moscow for peace and to send a clear message that the Russian economy will be severely hit if there is no progress.
In the meantime, Russia continues to engage in active hostilities. Over the past few weeks, Ukrainian cities have been hit by massive Russian attacks, casting doubt on whether Russia intends to end the war. Russia launched another drone attack on the city of Sumy, causing civilian casualties, on 29 April. Such acts erode the credibility of the Kremlin’s peace claims and lead Western partners to view Russian initiatives as diplomatic gamesmanship rather than genuine resolution.
Here, a key question is whether Moscow’s statements of willingness for peace are part of a diplomatic gambit or a signal for serious negotiations. In any case, in the face of simultaneous Russian statements of openness to dialogue and continued shelling, Western partners should remain cautious in the conclusions they draw. Compliance with international law, not the actual consolidation of the results of aggression, should be the basis of any peaceful settlement.
A lasting peace requires not only a ceasefire. It also requires clear accountability for its violations. Confidence in dialogue as a means of resolving conflicts in Europe can only be restored on this basis.