Ukraine hopes its ceasefire offer will turn the tables on Russia

Ukraine and America have been at loggerheads since a televised shouting match at the White House between their leaders, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, on February 28th. The American president accused his guest of not wanting peace, threw out the Ukrainian delegation and, days later, halted American weapons deliveries and much vital battlefield intelligence, notably information for long-range strikes.

Mr Zelensky worked hard to repair the breach. On March 4th he wrote an assuaging letter to Mr Trump describing the bust-up as “regrettable", pledged to seek peace and proposed a partial ceasefire that would halt mutual attacks from the air or at sea. British and French leaders worked assiduously behind the scenes to ease the crisis.

The setting for the reconciliation meeting—on neutral ground in Jeddah, with Saudi mediators on hand to facilitate the discussions—was more suitable for talks between rivals than ostensible allies in a long war. But being away from the febrile politics of Washington may have helped, given the tensions in Mr Trump’s camp over the direction of his “America First" foreign policy. If the rupture at the White House was in large part the work of J.D. Vance, the vice-president with a history of disdain for Ukraine, the repair job was left to Mr Rubio and Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, both of whom are hawkish, old-style conservatives. A salvo of drones launched against Moscow hours before the talks, which Ukraine said struck a refinery among other targets, did not derail the discussions.

The talks in Jeddah lasted several hours. According to participants, the Ukrainians opened with Mr Zelensky’s idea for partial ceasefire. The Americans countered with the idea of a complete ceasefire, limited to an initial 30 days, renewable if both combatants agree. After consultations with Mr Zelensky, the Ukrainians agreed. The discussion then turned to restoring military aid and intelligence sharing. Within hours, an American general confirmed the support would resume, recounted one participant, Colonel Pavlo Palisa, deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential office.

There was little detail of what else, if anything, had been agreed upon. The joint statement said both sides had discussed “the importance of humanitarian relief efforts as part of the peace process, particularly during the above-mentioned ceasefire, including the exchange of prisoners-of-war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children."

Both sides also said they would “conclude as soon as possible a comprehensive agreement for developing Ukraine’s critical mineral resources to expand Ukraine’s economy and guarantee Ukraine’s long-term prosperity and security." An outline of this agreement was supposed to have been signed at the ill-fated White House meeting. Now the sides are aiming for the full accord, numbering hundreds of pages. The details remain unclear, but Mr Trump has presented it both as payback for past American support for Ukraine and an implicit guarantee that America would defend its economic interests in the country.

Mr Zelensky has hitherto resisted any ceasefire without an explicit American security guarantee, fearing that Russia would use a cessation of hostilities to re-arm and attack again in future. Mr Waltz said guarantees had been discussed but offered no further details.

Britain and France hailed the Jeddah deal. On March 11th Emmanuel Macron, the French president, hosted military chiefs from more than 30 countries to help “define credible security guarantees" for Ukraine. The likeliest option is a proposed European “reassurance" force, perhaps 20,000-30,000 strong, that would be deployed to Ukraine if a lasting ceasefire is reached. Even if no American troops are deployed, Britain has pushed for an American “backstop", ie, some assurance that the United States would help defend the Europeans if they were attacked by Russia. France, however, seems ready to accept a greater degree of risk, making do with the promise of military support, such as airlifts and air-to-air refuelling. Much of this will be for future discussions. Mr Rubio said the priority was to ensure that the fighting stops. “We think that it’s always easier to negotiate an end to the war when people aren’t shooting at each other."

Eric Ciaramella of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an American think-tank, argues that the Jeddah deal is better than Ukraine might have expected: “A clean ceasefire benefits the Ukrainians. It would give them time to rest, and has the potential to put Russia on the back foot." Moreover, he notes, Ukraine has not had to make concessions, even if Mr Trump appears to have in recent weeks prematurely yielded important points to Russia: for instance, saying Ukraine would not recover all of its lost territory and ruling out its hopes of joining NATO.

All eyes will turn next to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, who has set out expansive conditions to end his three-year-old war. They include more than just a ceasefire on current lines. He wants the annexation of four Ukrainian provinces, the neutrality of Ukraine, a reduction of its armed forces and dealing with the “root causes" of the conflict, implying a retreat of NATO forces from much of eastern Europe. Russia has rejected the deployment of a European force in Ukraine.

With his troops grinding forward, and seeking to squeeze Ukraine out of a chunk of Russian territory in Kursk province, Mr Putin may not be ready for a ceasefire. If he rejects the American proposal, however, he risks pushing a sympathetic Mr Trump into greater support for Ukraine. That, at least, is what Ukraine and its friends will be hoping for. “If they say no, then we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here," said Mr Rubio.

Even so, the process will remain ever vulnerable to one of Mr Trump’s mood swings. Despite occasional threats of economic sanctions against the Kremlin, the president has for the most part put extreme pressure on Ukraine while easing it on Russia. America these days refuses to label Russia as the aggressor, voted with it at the United Nations and, reportedly, has stopped cyberattacks against Russia. There is little to stop Mr Trump again blaming Ukraine as the recalcitrant party when the next problem appears.

Right now Ukraine is in a better position than it was after the ill-fated encounter at the White House, and seems to have regained some initiative. Asked what would happen if Russia rejected the ceasefire, Colonel Palisa replied: “Only God knows. But think about it—over the last three weeks, the media has been saying that Ukraine doesn’t want peace. Now we’ve proven that’s not true."

At the diplomatic table as in the trenches, short-term success is no guarantee of victory. But Ukraine has staved off defeat and survived to fight another day.