The stage of the concept: The Russian Federation and the United States are negotiating on Ukraine on a bilateral basis

Negotiations between Russia and the United States on the Ukrainian issue are continuing only in a bilateral format, Dmitry Polyansky, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, told Izvestia. At the same time, the parties are unlikely to be able to reach a ceasefire agreement by Easter, which was previously discussed in the White House. The expert community believes that the key reasons for this are Ukraine's inability to negotiate, its violation of the moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure, and Donald Trump's desire to achieve a quick cease—fire without a political settlement. At the same time, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff's last visit to St. Petersburg on April 11 may become a bridge to organizing a meeting between the two leaders. The article in Izvestia explains why the negotiation process on Ukraine has not yet yielded the necessary fruits.

At what stage is the negotiation process on Ukraine?

The Ukrainian conflict remains a key obstacle to the normalization of Russian-American relations. The crisis in Ukraine is regularly discussed in the most authoritative international organization in the world, the UN. However, so far there have been no contacts on Ukraine on the UN platform, and the structure itself is unlikely to become an intermediary in the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations. This was stated to Izvestia by Dmitry Polyansky, First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations.

"So far, everything is going well in negotiations with the United States," the Russian diplomat stated. — So far, everything is going in a bilateral format. We have not interrupted our bilateral dialogue with the United States on the work of the United Nations.

In recent months, the Russian-American dialogue has intensified: two meetings of delegations on the Ukrainian settlement took place, two telephone conversations between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, as well as a series of high-level contacts. In early April, Kirill Dmitriev, the special representative of the President of the Russian Federation, visited Washington, where he discussed the restoration of economic ties and possible ways to de-escalate.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President's Special Envoy for the Middle East Stephen Witkoff during a meeting, April 11, 2025

Photo: RIA Novosti/Gavriil Grigorov

Another important event was the third visit of Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff to Russia on April 11. His meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg lasted 4.5 hours and, according to Dmitriev, was productive. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called these talks a step towards a possible meeting of the leaders, although he warned: "Immediate results should not be expected — the problems in relations are too neglected." There are two approaches to resolving contradictions — international law and economics, says Vladimir Vasiliev, Chief Researcher at ISKRAN.

— The first one involves the conclusion of agreements that must be formalized within the framework of international law. All this must be signed and ratified. But this path is currently unclear. Because the position of the West is still very simple — it is that Ukraine, in their opinion, should exist within the borders of 1991. They still do not recognize and may not be going to recognize those territories that have been ceded to Russia. In this regard, a second approach arises — to put aside these aspects and switch to purely economic ones," he told Izvestia.

The expert points out that the alternative may be the creation of economic zones in disputed territories, which will become "enclaves of stability" with the participation of international business. However, Kiev, in his opinion, is sabotaging even such ideas, fearing to turn into a "territory dependent on the West" with debts that will have to be repaid.

Photo: Global Look Press/Serg Glovny

Despite the rhetoric of progress, contradictions remain. Donald Trump, who positions himself as a "mediator," extended the sanctions against Russia imposed under Joe Biden for a year, and in February, restrictions related to Crimea. This creates an ambivalent impression: on the one hand, the US administration is demonstrating readiness for dialogue, on the other, it retains "leverage." The media reported on the proposal of Trump's special envoy Keith Kellogg to divide Ukraine into zones of influence by analogy with post-war Berlin, which immediately caused a scandal. Kellogg later denied this information, calling it a distortion, but the idea itself reflects the search for radical solutions in Washington.

Negotiations on the Black Sea Initiative remain an important track. At the end of March, the Russian Federation and the United States held several hours of negotiations in Riyadh on the possibility of its resumption. The Russian side was represented by Grigory Karasin, head of the Federation Council's International Affairs Committee, and Sergey Beseda, adviser to the head of the FSB. Turkish media reported that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine on the safety of navigation in the Black Sea are scheduled for April 15-16 in Ankara. However, Kiev hastened to refute this information. In the negotiations on the Black Sea Initiative, Moscow insists on lifting sanctions against Rosselkhoznadzor and its return to SWIFT, conditions that rest on the stubborn position of the EU.

What prevents the conflict from being resolved

Donald Trump's initial plans to agree on a cease—fire by Easter, April 20, have already been recognized as unrealistic by the White House. Moreover, the administration fears that it will not be possible to conclude a peace agreement even in the coming months, sources told Reuters earlier.

Moscow has repeatedly stressed that the only way to end the conflict is to eliminate its root causes. One of these reasons is the desire of the West to draw Ukraine into NATO.

"President Trump has said publicly more than once that Ukraine's involvement in NATO was a mistake, which probably played a decisive role in the current events, despite many years of warnings from Moscow," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated earlier.

US President Donald Trump

Photo: REUTERS/Nathan Howard

The Russian leader listed the conditions for the start of peace talks with Ukraine back in June last year. And since then, this list has not undergone any special changes: the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, as well as Kiev's official statement on the abandonment of plans to join the North Atlantic Alliance. The US approach is the opposite: first, a cease—fire, and then peace negotiations and a political settlement.

— A political settlement is a more complex and lengthy process compared to a truce. To do this, we need to negotiate not only with Moscow and Washington, but also with the Europeans, within NATO, raise the issue of a new European security architecture, build bilateral and multilateral agreements, and somehow sell this to Kiev. But this is not the style of Trump, who wants simple and understandable solutions for everyone," Andrei Kortunov, an expert at the Valdai Club, said in a conversation with Izvestia.

In addition, Kiev's position remains a stumbling block, which does not comply with the moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure agreed in March. Only in the last 24 hours, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, the Ukrainian Armed Forces attacked power facilities in the Belgorod region. Finally, the key U.S. allies in Europe, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, continue to maintain their policy of maintaining military assistance to Ukraine. Brussels still adheres to militaristic positions.

Photo: Global Look Press/Christoph Soeder

Witkoff's third visit to Russia, however, gives hope for some progress in the negotiations. According to Western media reports, he suggested that Trump recognize Russian control over Donbas and the southern regions as the basis for peace. This could be a breakthrough, but it is facing resistance in Washington. Another special envoy of the US president, Keith Kellogg, known for his pro-Ukrainian position, opposed this approach, calling it "capitulation." Nevertheless, the very fact of discussing such scenarios indicates a shift.

The negotiation process between Russia and the United States resembles walking on thin ice: each side demonstrates pragmatism, but is not ready to abandon key principles. Washington, while maintaining sanctions, is trying to bargain for geopolitical dividends, while Moscow insists on security guarantees. Kiev, losing the trust of both sides, risks remaining hostage to its own incompetence.

Recent contacts between Russian and American representatives may become a bridge to a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, but bold decisions are needed for real progress. As Vasiliev concluded, "agreements in principle do not guarantee their fulfillment," especially when one of the parties to the conflict prefers war to dialogue.