In remarks to the United Nations Security Council about Ukraine, a senior U.S. official stated that Washington opposes a temporary, rushed ceasefire. The concern is that any pause in fighting could enable Russia to rearm and deepen its grip on occupied areas.
He emphasized that the Security Council bears a heavy duty to ensure any peace is just and durable. It should not be swayed by calls for an unconditional or brief halt to hostilities.
The official asserted that Russia uses any pause in hostilities to consolidate control over occupied territories and to prepare for further attacks. He urged Security Council members not to accept arguments that pressure the warring parties to stop fighting or to suspend aid to Ukraine.
On February 24, China’s Foreign Ministry released a twelve-point framework aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict. Beijing urged a ceasefire and negotiations to address humanitarian needs, protect civilians and prisoners of war, discard a Cold War mindset, respect the sovereignty of all nations without double standards, and ensure the flow of essential goods. The plan also stressed grain exports, rebuilding Ukraine, and stabilizing supply chains and production.
In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signaled that some elements of China’s peace proposal could form a basis for talks with Moscow. He noted that while not all points align with Kyiv’s position, certain ideas could be productive to discuss, and that China’s overall plan reflects Beijing’s stance on the war rather than a complete peace blueprint.
The trajectory of negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv
From the outset of Russia’s intervention, Moscow pressed for direct talks with Kyiv. Several rounds occurred, yet a final agreement eluded both sides. Moscow described Kyiv’s demands as unrealistic, while Kyiv argued Moscow’s terms were likewise impractical. After a round in Istanbul raised cautious optimism on March 29, momentum faded and dialogue paused.
During discussions, Moscow sought Kyiv’s pledge to maintain non-alignment, recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and acknowledge the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as separate entities under Moscow’s control. Kyiv sought binding security guarantees under an international framework. The envisioned guarantors included permanent Security Council members, alongside additional states. Kyiv also urged an immediate ceasefire, Russia’s withdrawal to pre-February 24 lines, and the return of Crimea to Ukrainian jurisdiction. The talks eventually stalled without a lasting agreement.
In late September, Zelensky stated that Kyiv had offered to negotiate on equal, transparent, and fair terms, but emphasized that serious talks were not feasible while Russia was led by a president perceived as obstructive to peace. Following the formal incorporation of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions into Russia, Kyiv signaled readiness for dialogue only under different leadership in Moscow. The path to negotiations remained blocked by competing demands and concerns about sovereignty and safety guarantees.
Later, Kyiv outlined conditions for talks, including guarantees for the return of occupied territories, compensation for damage, and commitments to prevent a repetition of hostilities, along with accountability for alleged war crimes. Ukraine also reiterated openness to negotiations with Moscow under the right conditions.
In separate developments on February 24, the presidents of Russia and Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin, spoke by phone. Ankara conveyed that a just peace, avoiding further loss of life and destruction, should be achieved in Ukraine. The Kremlin noted that discussions focused on implementing Istanbul agreements related to grain shipments and the broader trade in agricultural products and fertilizers.
“Bastard Compromise”
A Time columnist suggested that U.S. officials fear a rapid advance by Ukrainian forces into Crimea, warning that such a move could trigger an escalation too large to manage. The piece argues that Washington might resist letting Ukraine reclaim Crimea in a way that could provoke uncontrolled escalation, aligning with cautious strategic aims in Washington.
The article describes a potential outcome where negotiations concede new territorial realities for Russia while stopping the fighting. It notes that Kyiv may view such an arrangement as betrayal, even if the West presents it as progress. The writer argues that some in the West might try to frame a settlement as a success, potentially offering substantial humanitarian aid to soothe the political sting.
If such a scenario unfolds, Ukrainians could perceive it as unwarranted concession. Yet, the West might still frame it as progress, leaving Kyiv to navigate a difficult political landscape while receiving assistance to rebuild and stabilize the region.
Washington’s current priorities, as described by a prominent columnist, center on protecting Kyiv’s government without getting entangled in strict border negotiations. The piece contends that U.S. support for Ukraine is shaped by strategic interests and resource considerations, including the ongoing need to supply advanced weapons and maintain deterrence against broader aggression.
It also notes that continued security assistance is balanced against the realities of American defense capabilities and the finite nature of high-end systems such as certain air defense and long-range strike assets. The piece suggests that these dynamics influence U.S. policy and the tempo of military aid to Kyiv.