Is it worth Russia to force a truce in Ukraine

The process of resolving the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has moved out of the dead point. The agreements reached in Riyadh have not yet been a breakthrough, but the largest achievement of diplomacy since the signing of a grain transaction in the summer of 2022.

Pessimists will undoubtedly note that no strict guarantees for the implementation of the agreements have yet been created, and indeed in the statements of Russia, the USA and Ukraine there are not only stylistic, but also substantial discrepancies. Probably, someone will add that Moscow should not rush: the situation on the battlefield changes in favor of Russia, the problems of the Kyiv leadership are steadily multiplying, and the inextricable connection between temporary truce and the strong world is generally not obvious.

The conclusion suggests itself about the preference of a leisurely dialogue with a parallel increase in military advantages and the accumulation of trump cards for full -format negotiations. According to this logic, the attention of the White House is advisable to switch to bilateral relations and promising joint projects.

But this approach would be risky. Donald Trump thinks the categories of « transactions ».

In the absence of a quick movement towards a truce, an impatient and inconsistent American president can lose interest in the “transaction”, and with it the motivation to improve bilateral relations.

In one of his last interviews, Trump had already suggested that Russia consciously pulls time, making a reservation, which he himself did for many years, concluding various transactions. If the White House feels that Moscow deliberately slows down negotiations and, in principle, is not ready to stop fire, then the prospect of the Russian-American summit will be in question, and any large bilateral projects will most likely be paused. It is clear that opponents of Russian-American rapprochement are waiting for such an outcome both in European capitals and in Washington.

The forcing of the ceasefire agreements also have its own risks. If in the end it is not possible to agree on a solid world, then Russia will receive a frozen conflict with threats of its subsequent defrosting. However, the risks look justified. The achievement of an agreement on the ceasefire through the mediation of Trump assigns to his administration and personally to the US president for the transformation of temporary truce into a strong and stable world. In this situation, the Kremlin has the right to rely on the fact that the White House will try to bring its mission to the end and will not tolerate Kyiv’s attempts to return to the resumption of hostilities.

The White House is considered possible to achieve an agreement already in Easter (April 20). This period looks excessively optimistic – a little more than three weeks left before Easter. Even the task is to completely stop the fighting for Victory Day (May 9) may be unattainable.

But to achieve breakthrough results to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (June 18–21) seems quite real. And then among the participants of the forum, the presidents of several large American corporations may well be lit up, one of the sessions may be a special envoy of the US President Steve Whitkoff or Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Moreover, in case of success, one cannot completely exclude the personal presence of Donald Trump in St. Petersburg in St. Petersburg.