The Trump-Putin phone call: diplomacy or a chaotic stalemate?

The telephone conversation yesterday 18 March 2025 between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin was billed as a critical moment in ongoing negotiations over the war in Ukraine. In advance of the call, President Trump publicly stated that the discussion would focus on "land and power plants", signalling that the conversation was part of ongoing diplomatic efforts to reach a comprehensive ceasefire agreement and resolve disputes over key infrastructure. Trump also emphasised that "a lot of work has been done over the weekend" and that negotiators had discussed "dividing up certain assets," suggesting that most terms had been settled aside from final territorial and energy-related issues. However, the post-call accounts from various parties presented starkly different perspectives on what has actually been discussed and agreed upon when Trump and Putin spoke.

Divergent Accounts: Russian, Ukrainian, and American Perspectives

Immediately following the call, the Kremlin released an official statement, characterising the discussion as "constructive and businesslike." According to Moscow, Putin reiterated Russia’s position on the necessity of securing her territorial gains while agreeing to halt airstrikes against Ukrainian energy and infrastructure facilities as a "goodwill gesture." However, Russia notably refrained from committing to the full 30-day total ceasefire that had been under negotiation, a significant deviation from what American diplomats had reportedly sought.

By contrast, the Ukrainian government’s statement, issued promptly after the call, expressed cautious optimism but emphasised that Ukraine had not agreed to any territorial concessions. Kyiv noted that while Putin had agreed to stop attacking civilian infrastructure (something slightly different from what the Kremlin said President Putin had actually agreed to), Russia's broader military actions remained unchanged, with continued artillery fire along the front lines since the telephone call took place. Ukraine's statement also underscored that Ukraine would continue defensive operations unless a verified and enforceable ceasefire was put in place.

The White House initially described the call as "full and frank", a well-known diplomatic euphemism indicating a heated exchange of views. While this suggested significant disagreements between Trump and Putin, the US administration refrained from explicitly acknowledging tensions. However, President Trump’s social media posts painted a vastly different picture, stating that the discussion "went very well" and that "progress was made." This discrepancy raises questions about whether Trump was downplaying the call’s contentious nature to present an image of diplomatic success when in fact there had been none.

The White House itself issued a statement, that it did not publish, which said this:

Today, President Trump and President Putin spoke about the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace. They also stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the United States and Russia. The blood and treasure that both Ukraine and Russia have been spending in this war would be better spent on the needs of their people.

This conflict should never have started and should have been ended long ago with sincere and good faith peace efforts. The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace. These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.

It seems that nobody wants to be explicit about what was actually discussed or agreed on the call, which is a strong indication that it went badly.

Failure of the Ceasefire Agreement in Practice

Despite the official rhetoric from all sides, the reality on the ground has shown a blatant disregard for any ceasefire agreement. Within hours of the call, Russian drone attacks struck multiple locations in Kyiv, undermining any notion that Moscow intended to de-escalate. At the same time, Ukrainian forces carried out strikes on a Russian oil depot, signaling that Kyiv also remains unwilling to halt its military operations while Russian aggression continues.

One of the key outcomes from the conversation was an agreement to continue diplomatic discussions. Initially, these follow-up talks were said to begin "immediately", but they have since been delayed until Sunday, reinforcing the perception that Putin is in no rush to reach a genuine resolution. The postponement suggests that Russia is playing for time, prolonging negotiations while maintaining military pressure on Ukraine and testing Western resolve.

The Broader Implications: A Strategy of Delay and Resistance

The chaotic aftermath of this call demonstrates a recurring pattern in Russia’s diplomatic engagements—agreeing to the bare minimum required to keep negotiations going while continuing military aggression. Putin’s strategy appears to be one of attrition, conceding only what is necessary to sustain diplomatic channels while waiting to see whether military or economic pressure from the West forces him into a more meaningful compromise. This tactic allows Russia to dictate the pace of negotiations while continuing to erode Ukrainian defences and infrastructure.

Given this reality, the only way to compel Russia to engage in a meaningful ceasefire and eventual peace agreement is through sustained pressure. Incremental increases in Western military aid to Ukraine, coupled with enhanced economic sanctions on Russia, would be the only measures capable of altering the Kremlin’s calculations. Without such pressure, Putin has little incentive to change course, and any agreements—whether on power plants, ceasefires, or territorial issues—will remain unenforceable in practice.

In conclusion, the Trump-Putin call has done little to bring the war in Ukraine closer to resolution. Instead it has underscored the fundamental problem of negotiating with a Russian leadership that prioritises military leverage over diplomatic commitments. Until the Kremlin faces serious consequences for its continued aggression, negotiations will remain stalled, and any agreements reached—whether in principle or in name—will continue to be ignored on the battlefield.