Martial law and general mobilization extended in Ukraine.
On April 16, 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, during a plenary session, supported President Volodymyr Zelensky's initiative to extend the legal regime of martial law and general mobilization. The corresponding draft laws No. 13172 and No. 13173, submitted by the head of state, were included in the agenda and adopted as a whole.
Draft Law No. 13172 — “On Extending the Duration of Martial Law in Ukraine” — was supported by 357 Members of Parliament.
Draft Law No. 13173 — “On Extending the Duration of General Mobilization” — received support from 346 Members of Parliament.
Only one Member of Parliament, Oleksii Honcharenko from the “European Solidarity” faction, voted against both decisions.
This marks the 15th extension of the martial law and general mobilization regime since their introduction in February 2022. In accordance with the adopted laws, the martial law and mobilization measures have been extended for another 90 days — until August 6, 2025, inclusive.
The laws will come into force after their official signing by the President of Ukraine and publication in official sources.
At the same time, this vote in the Verkhovna Rada served as an important signal to the new U.S. Administration about the continued political stability of Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as his ability to maintain control over internal parliamentary processes — even amid growing pressure from international partners.
The vote to extend martial law in Parliament demonstrated a high degree of unity within the current government. The overwhelming support for the President’s initiative indicates that strong political control and an effective decision-making vertical from the Office of the President remain in place within the country.
The extension of martial law is a clear indicator that the course pursued by the Office of the President of Ukraine is increasingly diverging from the position of the White House, which is aimed at a swift end to the war in Ukraine.
Given the specifics of Ukrainian legislation and the electoral process, holding elections in 2025 is already becoming extremely difficult. The minimum possible timeframes are:
-
90 days for parliamentary elections — meaning the campaign would need to start in early November 2025;
-
120 days for presidential elections — with a start date in December 2025.
Previously, representatives of the Ukrainian authorities stated that preparing for elections could take up to six months, which effectively rules out holding them in 2025 if martial law remains in place.
This means that, with high probability, elections in Ukraine this year — according to U.S. President Donald Trump’s formula (cessation of hostilities, elections in Ukraine, signing of a peace agreement) — will not take place.
Thus, the extension of martial law in Ukraine for a full term under the current political and diplomatic circumstances can be interpreted as a demonstrative course by the authorities to forgo holding elections in 2025. This decision directly contradicts the position of the Administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Situation Surrounding Peace Negotiations to End the War in Ukraine
Despite the diplomatic efforts of the United States, the process of ending the war in Ukraine is showing signs of a strategic deadlock. Neither Ukraine nor Russia is demonstrating genuine readiness for mutual compromise.
The public optimism from Washington, reflected in the statements of U.S. President Donald Trump and his special representative S. Whitkoff, has so far not been confirmed by any concrete agreements or results. Formally, the negotiation process continues, but its substantive progress remains extremely limited.
In reality, President Donald Trump's initiative to launch a negotiation track is facing growing resistance from both sides, which has led to his personal frustration. As a result, the rhetoric of the new U.S. Administration toward both the Ukrainian and Russian leaderships has become increasingly harsh. During a briefing at the White House, President Trump openly accused all key parties of starting the war, including former U.S. President Joe Biden and the presidents of Ukraine and Russia:
“This war should never have started. Biden could have stopped it. Zelensky could have stopped it. And Putin should never have started it. They're all to blame.”
U.S. President Donald Trump also commented separately on the actions of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, emphasizing that Zelensky had initially relied on external military support:
“Zelensky is always looking for a way to buy missiles. When you start a war, you need to be sure you can win it — especially a war against someone twenty times bigger than you. And then you just hope they’ll give you some missiles.”
Trump further clarified that the “mistake” he referred to in the context of the strikes on the city of Sumy was the war itself: “The mistake was allowing this war to happen. I don’t know if Zelensky is competent. We had a very tough session with that guy — he kept asking for more and more.” Previously, Trump’s statement on the Russian strike on Sumy came across as vague and lacking specificity. “It’s terrible. I was told they made a mistake…” — this was how the U.S. President commented on the incident, without directly mentioning or blaming Russia. This “soft” approach by Trump is tied to his desire not to derail the already delicate negotiation process with Russia on Ukraine. In particular, it is likely that there were expectations in Ukraine that the tragedy in Sumy might generate a “new Bucha” effect — both domestically and within the international community — serving as a formal pretext to withdraw from talks with Russia, much like what happened after the Istanbul peace format in April 2022. However, Trump made it clear that this tragedy will not become a reason to abandon negotiations with Russia.
Alongside the deteriorating atmosphere in dialogue with Kyiv, U.S. negotiations with the Russian Federation also show no practical results. Despite a visit to the U.S. by the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, and a trip to Moscow by U.S. President’s Special Representative Stephen Whitkoff, no tangible agreements have been reached.
On April 11, Stephen Whitkoff, the special representative of the U.S. President, arrived in Moscow and held talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with the participation of Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov and Kirill Dmitriev. This was the third meeting since the beginning of the year. The talks lasted over four hours.
According to Whitkoff, “the sides reached an understanding” and “a peace deal appeared on the horizon”: “It concerns the so-called five territories (likely referring to Crimea, and the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions), but in reality, it’s about much more: security protocols, NATO Article 5, guarantees. Partnership creates stability.”
He also expressed confidence that “peace is possible,” and that “U.S.-Russia relations can be rebooted through commercial cooperation.”
But Disagreements Remain. Despite Stephen Whitkoff’s optimism, Russia has yet to confirm that an agreement is near. Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov stated:
“There is not yet a clear outline of an agreement, but there is political will to move in that direction.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also noted that “the key parameters of the agreement have not been agreed upon.”
In Ukraine, particular concern was caused by the mention of the "five territories." President Zelensky has already responded:
“These matters are beyond Mr. Whitkoff’s authority. Recognition of occupied territories is a red line for Ukraine.”
Each round of negotiations appears to come down to Moscow trying to remove another bank or corporation from sanctions in exchange for some step forward. There is a growing perception that Russia is mainly looking for a way to “poke a hole” in the sanctions regime. At the same time, the Kremlin refuses to even discuss the issue of nuclear deterrence, believing that this remains an area of strategic advantage for Russia.
In essence, Russia’s position boils down to this: any concessions are only possible in exchange for strategic concessions from the United States.
This approach is increasingly frustrating Washington.
It is also worth noting the growing signs of public dissatisfaction on the Ukrainian side toward U.S. President Donald Trump and his model of negotiations with Russia. Despite previously expressed willingness to make partial concessions in exchange for continued U.S. support, Kyiv’s rhetoric is becoming increasingly firm. Ukraine continues to demand not just support from the United States, but a principled stance on matters of sovereignty and security.
Statements made by Stephen Whitkoff provoked a sharp reaction from Ukrainian officials. President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Whitkoff was “discussing issues beyond his authority” and emphasized that the recognition of occupied territories is unacceptable:
“These are red lines for Ukraine.”
Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, Oleksandr Merezhko (Servant of the People party), called President Trump’s statements “absurd” and “Russian propaganda”:
“That’s like saying 9/11 was just a ‘mistake’ by al-Qaeda.” Meanwhile, MP Maryana Bezuhla went as far as to call for the severing of diplomatic relations with the United States.
Earlier, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave a lengthy interview to CBS News on the TV show 60 Minutes — a show with which Donald Trump has a long-standing conflict and legal battle. In the interview, Zelensky took a firm and unambiguous stance on peace negotiations, declaring that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine the victim. He criticized the U.S. Administration’s attempt to remain neutral and pointed out the dominance of Russian narratives in American political discourse. Following the interview, Trump sharply criticized CBS News and called for the show to be stripped of its broadcasting license.
A key indicator of whether the Ukrainian leadership will ultimately follow the course set by the new Trump Administration will be whether or not a natural resources agreement—currently stalled—gets signed. Representatives of Ukraine, including Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko, are expected to arrive in Washington on April 25 to continue negotiations.
The delay in finalizing the agreement on natural resources is hindering the United States' ability to move forward with peace negotiations. Despite its economic form, the document has a geopolitical nature — it positions Ukraine within the Western orbit and provides the U.S. with leverage in its dialogue with Russia. Washington is constructing a model where Ukraine becomes economically dependent but politically governed within the Western sphere of influence.
For the U.S., signing this agreement is a necessary condition for beginning the main round of negotiations between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. It allows the U.S. to demonstrate to its own public that assistance to Ukraine is starting to "return," while showing Moscow the established geopolitical boundaries.
Without a signed document, the United States is not ready to engage in direct negotiations with the Kremlin. The deal will also strengthen Washington’s control over Kyiv, significantly reducing Volodymyr Zelensky’s foreign policy autonomy, increasing Ukraine’s dependence on the U.S., and leading to a weakening of his domestic political position.
Despite Ukraine’s attempts to revise the terms, the likelihood of the agreement being signed remains high.
Resignation of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink as part of broader shift toward the new Donald Trump administration.
The resignation of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink in April 2025 was the result of growing disagreements with President Donald Trump’s administration and a deterioration of relations with the Office of the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Bridget Brink, who was appointed to the position in May 2022, was appointed under Joe Biden and actively represented the Democratic Party's agenda — focusing on strong deterrence of Russia, extensive military aid to Ukraine, an emphasis on human rights, and institutional reforms. In contrast, the current Republican administration is focusing on negotiations, controlling the expenditure of funds, and taking a more realistic approach to ending the war.
The resignation of Bridget Brink reflects a broader shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine and signals the beginning of a new phase in bilateral relations, where the focus is shifting from military support to diplomatic initiatives and economic agreements. In diplomacy, replacing a key representative in a country is a clear signal of a change in priorities. The new ambassador is likely to align more closely with Trump and his team's approach, which could help expedite the alignment of projects and the signing of agreements, such as those on the use of natural resources and others.
This also serves as a signal to Ukraine’s political and business elites: the rules of the game have changed. Success in relations with the U.S. now requires new approaches and new connections, within the framework of the Republican mainstream.
Combat Actions
Over the past week, Russian forces captured an additional 33 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory, bringing their total control to 112 square kilometers. In the Kursk region, the Ukrainian foothold shrank by another 25 square kilometers. After the loss of nearly all of the territory in the Sudzha salient, the Ukrainian position in the Kursk region was effectively split into two isolated parts. The northern section, including the city of Sudzha, was cut off from the main forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, complicating supply lines and coordination. The remaining Ukrainian units in the Oleshni and Hornal areas were isolated and constantly pressured by Russian troops. Currently, Ukraine controls approximately 30 square kilometers in the Kursk region.
In the Donetsk Region, Russian troops have made significant advances in the area of the Kurakhovo-Zaporizhzhia road, advancing westward from the settlement of Rozlyv. Additionally, Russia has progressed south of the settlement of Bohatyr towards Razdolne. Russia’s objective is to attack the settlement of Otradne to block the logistics of Bohatyr, in a manner similar to the situation with Konstantinopol.
On the Pokrovsk direction, Russian forces have advanced to the settlement of Nadezhdinka, near the border with the Dnipropetrovsk region.
On the Toretsk direction, Russian troops are advancing in the area of the settlement of Sukhaya Balka, south of the city of Toretsk.
In the area of the city of Chasiv Yar, Russian forces are storming the northern districts of the city, where Ukrainian forces still maintain control.
On the Lyman-Oskoł Front in Kharkiv and Luhansk regions, Russian forces have advanced to the settlement of Yekaterinivka and are moving toward the settlement of Borovoi.
In northern Ukraine, on the border of the Sumy region, Russian troops are expanding their offensive zone and are breaking through to the settlement of Lokne, which is near the settlement of Yunakovka — an important point on the road to Sudzha. The Russian Ministry of Defense claims to have captured the village of Zhuravka in the Sumy region.
The Kursk offensive operation has gradually transformed into defensive actions on the Sumy and Kharkiv directions. This week, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, General Oleksandr Syrskyi, officially stated that Russian forces have effectively started offensive operations on these sections of the front. This statement was made as an announcement of the beginning of a new large-scale offensive, but the situation on the ground appears to be of a different nature.
This is more likely a continuation of the hostilities that began within the framework of the Kursk operation. Russian forces, pursuing retreating Ukrainian units, are advancing into the border areas of Ukraine — primarily in the Sumy region. As a result, the combat actions are unfolding "inertia-driven," transitioning from the territory of the Kursk region in Russia to the border regions of Ukraine.
Attempts at penetration are also observed in the Kharkiv region. However, at this point, it does not appear to be a separate and large-scale strategic campaign, but rather a continuation of front-line activity within the broader scope of the ongoing operation.
Russia controls approximately 50 square kilometers in the Sumy region, primarily in the border village zone. There have been reports of the occupation of Zhuravka and several other settlements, but the Ukrainian side has not yet confirmed stable control over these areas. Nevertheless, the presence of Russian units within the Sumy region is no longer in doubt. The city of Sumy is still over 30 kilometers away.
At the same time, there are no signs of preparations for a rapid offensive toward the cities of Sumy or Kharkiv.
Considering the previous statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding the need to create a "sanitary zone," the most likely scenario is Russia's attempt to capture the border territories of Ukraine to a depth of 20-30 kilometers along the line from Kharkiv to Chernihiv regions. The goal is to push the front line back and deprive the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) of the ability to use artillery, drones, and other means of striking Russian territory. It can be expected that 2025 will be a year of intense fighting in the Sumy, Kharkiv, and possibly Chernihiv regions. However, this is not a large-scale strategic offensive but rather a continuation of the momentum from the Kursk operation.
Map of hostilities.
Donetsk Oblast.
Kursk Oblast.
Ruslan Bortnik, Oksana Krasovska, Andriy Tymchenko
for the Ukrainian Institute of Politics
