The deceptive charm of negotiations with Russia. The West has been repeating this mistake since 2014. [OPINIA]

Ashley Davis29/03/2026

0 46 4 minutes read

Even before Donald Trump took office, he boldly claimed that he would end Russia's war with Ukraine within 24 hours. Meanwhile, more than a year later, there is still no end to the conflict. Moreover, rising global oil prices and even the temporary easing of sanctions against Russia after the US-Israeli attack on Iran only further strengthen Moscow's aggression and determination.

In an interview with Le Monde, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky repeated the obvious: there is no evidence that Moscow actually wants to end the war. — The United States believes that Putin wants to end the war. Our positions are completely different here, he said.

Russians 'demanding something that never belonged to them'

Declarations can set the direction of thinking, but they become dangerous when they replace reality. An effective strategy begins with a sober assessment of the facts, not with wishful thinking. And the facts show that the Kremlin is leading the White House into a trap.

The head of EU diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, correctly pointed out that this is a classic feature of the Russian style of negotiations – “demanding something that has never been theirs.” Russia does not seek to actually end the war, but to achieve a favorable balancewhich will allow it to continue its destructive campaign against the West indefinitely.

Three rounds of negotiations under US auspices have already been completed a clear pattern: a process without progress. The first round introduced a framework for trilateral talks, but failed to overcome fundamental differences on territory, ceasefire conditions and security guarantees.

The article continues below the video

The second round, in Geneva, was described as “difficult” and ended abruptly after just a few hours on the second day, when Kyiv accused Moscow of deliberately delaying the talks while maintaining maximum requests. The third round, changing format and locations, continued discussions, but at times without Russia's full involvement and without resolving key disputes.

In all three rounds, the basic line of conflict remained unchanged – Russian demands for territorial concessions versus Ukrainian expectations of security guarantees as a first step. The United States has reportedly tied future security guarantees to Kiev's withdrawal from Donbas, while also trying to avoid a congressional vote on those guarantees.

This position has become a strategic error of historic significance – a repeating one a weak and late response to Russian aggression in 2014which did not stop the threat, but brought us, as some say, one step closer to World War III.

More pressure, less negotiation

In the fifth year of Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine and its growing hybrid campaign against the West, it is clear that the world should have approached Moscow completely differently. The fundamental strategic mistake was to treat negotiations and pressure as successive tools rather than being used in parallel. Importantly, pressure should have been put on Moscow instead of trying to convince President Vladimir Putin.

Quick adoption and full implementation of American laws combined with coordinated actions of the European Union would allow for the imposition of far-reaching secondary sanctions on all entities purchasing Russian energy raw materials. This should be supported by a naval blockade against the so-called shadow fleets and restrictions on insurance, logistics and port access.

Early reductions in Russia's export earnings and giving Kiev unlimited medium- and long-range strike capabilities could have made the war financially unsustainable much earlier – forcing Moscow to negotiate under the pressure of real constraints rather than political blackmail.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin partially broke away from diplomatic isolation, tightened cooperation with other anti-Western countries, weakened trust in the US as a security guarantor, protected frozen assets from being transferred to Ukraine and prevented the West from participating in the Sky Shield initiative, which translated into huge human and economic losses throughout Ukraine during an exceptionally difficult winter.

The temporary easing of sanctions on Russian oil may bring Moscow an additional $2 billion. (approx. PLN 7.5 billion) profits. Although US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplays these amounts, the prolonged conflict in Iran may further increase Russian profits. Increased naval activity in the shadow of rising world oil prices and the shift from sales at low to even premium prices – all this clearly supports the Russian war economy.

Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, talks with Donald Trump, President of the United States, in the Oval Office. Washington, August 18, 2025AARON SCHWARTZ / POOL / PAP

Ukraine, meanwhile, enters 2026 with 42.3 percent. military budget dependent on international support. At the same time, the scale of Russian attacks is growing — over 1,000 drones and rockets. Ukrainians live in constant danger – praised for their perseverance, but receiving limited aid and increasing pressure from Washington.

The West does not fully understand Russia's motivation

The key reason for this situation is Moscow's success in the information sphere. The narratives that Russia cannot be defeated, that it is an unchanging power and that destabilization in Russia would be worse than the current aggressive dictatorship, have become established for good. The most dangerous illusion, however, is that in this historical period Russia can be separated from China. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has already perceived Western uncertainty and lack of decisiveness, and has no real motivation to make concessions.

The current U.S. approach reflects a tendency to project its own transactional mindset onto Moscow. Meanwhile, the Kremlin is not guided solely by the logic of trade fairs. Its goal is historical legacy and strategic domination by defeating the West — and Russia's political system is willing to bear far greater costs than Western policymakers can imagine.

The White House treats the Donbas agreement as a land exchange agreement, when in fact we are dealing with a key strategic moment. Giving the Kremlin back the fortified territories that it has not managed to conquer for 12 years, it would not end the war, but would open the way to further occupation of Ukrainey and extending the conflict to all of Europe. And this will officially mean a serious weakening of US leadership in the world.

Ashley Davis29/03/2026

0 46 4 minutes read