SITUATION IN UKRAINE March 12-19, 2025

The telephone conversation on March 18, 2025, between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin was undoubtedly the key event of the week. The conversation lasted 2.5 hours, indicating both the complexity of the issues discussed and the strong motivation of both sides to reset relations. The presidents discussed no fewer than fifteen topics.

Despite having common goals—seeking peace, a ceasefire, and the stabilization of the international situation—official statements from Washington and Moscow differ significantly in emphasis. Russia focuses more on demands toward Ukraine, such as halting mobilization and stopping Western arms supplies, as well as humanitarian aspects (security guarantees for prisoners of war and prisoner exchanges). In contrast, the White House used more neutral wording, focusing on positive cooperation.

At this stage, there are no signs that the parties have reached strategic agreements. This is confirmed by the absence of significant comments from the presidents and the differences in the official press releases from the White House and the Kremlin. The Russian statement emphasizes a stricter stance towards Ukraine and details steps for resolution, whereas the American statement focuses on aspirations for peace and cooperation.

The negotiation process can be divided into two key directions:

• Negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine – discussing conditions for ceasing hostilities, the status of occupied territories, and possible security guarantees.

• Negotiations on strategic stability between the U.S. and Russia – including security issues in the Middle East, the situation in the Red Sea, relations with Iran and Israel, and potential strategic economic deals.

This division partially makes U.S.-Russia cooperation less dependent on the war in Ukraine and the actions of European allies.
 

1. 1. 1. 1. Key Conclusions from the Negotiations:

1. Common Positions: Both statements emphasize a commitment to peace, a ceasefire, and the stabilization of the international situation. This indicates mutual recognition of the need to reduce tensions.

2. Differences in Emphasis: The Kremlin places significantly more focus on its demands towards Ukraine, calling for an end to mobilization and rearmament while highlighting Kyiv’s alleged unwillingness to negotiate. The White House does not present such theses, instead maintaining a positive tone regarding peace and cooperation.

3. Humanitarian Aspects: The Kremlin separately highlights humanitarian measures, such as security guarantees for Ukrainian prisoners of war and prisoner exchanges, which are absent from the White House statement.

4. U.S. Initiative: Trump’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire on energy infrastructure appears in both statements. However, the Kremlin emphasizes that Russia immediately ordered its military to comply with this plan.

5. Future Steps: The Kremlin’s statement outlines the creation of expert groups to resolve the conflict, indicating a more detailed negotiation plan on Russia’s part.

This was the fifth high-level contact between the U.S. and Russian presidents in the past month (phone conversation on February 12, negotiations in Saudi Arabia on February 18 and Turkey on February 27, as well as the visit of U.S. Special Representative Steve Witkoff to Russia on March 13). This suggests that both sides have already gained a sufficient understanding of each other’s positions. Therefore, the absence of a joint statement and press conferences by the leaders may indicate not only the complexity of the negotiation process but also a deliberate effort to keep many details secret in order to avoid jeopardizing the achievement of their goals.

Overall, the outcome of the negotiations appears to be more of an intermediate step in U.S.-Russia dialogue rather than a breakthrough agreement. Both sides put in significant effort to ensure that the talks were not perceived as a failure, but it is still too early to speak of fundamental agreements.

An analysis of the discussion points shows that there are many overlapping topics in both sides' statements but also significant discrepancies. President Trump and President Putin expressed a desire to seek compromise and stabilize the international situation, but no specific steps in this direction have yet been defined.

The most practical achievement of this negotiation stage is Russia’s agreement to Trump’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire regarding strikes on energy infrastructure. This proposal appears in both statements, but the Kremlin emphasizes that Russia immediately ordered its military to comply. Both sides also agreed to continue negotiations on a ceasefire in the Black Sea. These step-by-step ceasefire ideas were previously proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, making them a small but important tactical victory for them. For the White House, these agreements help avoid accusations that negotiations were conducted without Ukraine and Europe. Both ideas are likely to be supported. It is already known that the next round of negotiations between the U.S. and Russia will take place on March 23 in Saudi Arabia. Whether Ukraine will participate in these talks remains unknown.

On March 19, negotiations took place between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The conversation between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents lasted almost an hour. In particular, Zelensky supported Trump's proposal to halt strikes on Russian energy facilities.

According to the Office of the President of Ukraine, Trump informed Zelensky about the details of his conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine. The leaders agreed on the details of a ceasefire in the air, at sea, and the possibility of achieving a ceasefire on the front line. Zelensky briefed Trump on the battlefield situation, and they discussed the issue of prisoner exchanges and other related matters.

The White House stated that the discussion aimed to bring the positions of Ukraine and Russia closer together. Trump described the conversation with Zelensky as "very good":

"A large part of the discussion was based on my conversation with President Putin yesterday, to align both Russia and Ukraine in terms of their requests and needs," Trump wrote.

He added that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz would later provide further details on the conversation.

Earlier, before his negotiations with Trump, Zelensky emphasized that such a ceasefire must have guarantees and control mechanisms from the United States.

As an argument, he pointed out that immediately after the Trump-Putin talks, during which the Russian president allegedly gave the order to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, Ukraine suffered another large-scale strike by Russia.

Zelensky stated that he would submit a list of Ukrainian energy infrastructure sites to the U.S. side that Russia must not target. He also added that if Russia complies with these conditions, Ukraine would also refrain from attacking Russian infrastructure.

"Last night, following Putin's conversation with Trump, in which he supposedly issued an order to stop attacks on Ukraine's energy and infrastructure, there were 145 drone strikes, 4 S-300 missiles, and 2 Iskander missiles launched overnight.
The attacks targeted Sumy, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Kyiv, Donetsk, and Chernihiv regions, damaging 21 residential buildings, including agricultural and energy facilities.
If Russia stops striking our infrastructure, we will also stop targeting Russian infrastructure. But Putin's promises alone are not enough—there must be oversight. The U.S. must be the primary guarantor of this control," Zelensky stated.

According to Zelensky, this limited ceasefire—specifically regarding attacks on energy infrastructure and in the Black Sea—could eventually lead to a broader halt in hostilities across the front lines.

However, he emphasized that the issue of occupied territories remains a highly sensitive topic.

"Ukraine's 'red lines' are clear: we will never recognize the occupied territories as Russian, and the composition and strength of the Ukrainian army are non-negotiable," Zelensky said.

 

Military Situation.

In Kursk Oblast, there has been a significant reduction in territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Over the past week, Ukraine has lost an additional 170 square kilometers of its foothold in the region. Currently, the area under Ukrainian control has shrunk to two small border bridgeheads with a total area of 110 square kilometers, and it continues to decrease.

It is highly likely that Ukrainian forces will completely withdraw from the Kursk Salient in the near future. Ukrainian MP M. Bezuhla has effectively confirmed a New York Times report describing a "chaotic Ukrainian retreat" from Kursk Oblast. She stated that troops are receiving no clear orders to withdraw, and each unit is leaving as best it can, calling it "barbarism" on the part of Syrsky.

At the same time, the Ukrainian military command claims that the Ukrainian forces conducted a "planned redeployment to more advantageous defensive positions" in Kursk Oblast. President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that the operation in the region had already achieved its objectives—diverting Russian forces from other directions, preventing deeper Russian advances in Donbas, and blocking an attack on Sumy Oblast.

However, Zelensky also noted that Russia is amassing forces for a new offensive on Sumy Oblast, where battles are already taking place in the Novenke–Basivka border region. Currently, 62 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory are in the "gray zone."

In Donbas, Russian forces continue advancing north of Velyka Novosilka and have gained ground between Dniproenergiya and Razdolne, leaving only five kilometers to the highway leading to Zaporizhzhia.

In the Pokrovsk sector, the situation has been stabilized, and there have been no significant Russian advances.

In Toretsk, the frontline remains dynamic, and Russian forces have captured the Centralna mine, which was the last Ukrainian stronghold in the city.

In the Zaporizhzhia sector, Russian forces have intensified their offensive southwest of Orikhiv. The Russian Ministry of Defense has announced the capture of Stepne, located in the Orikhiv direction within Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Fighting is ongoing in the settlements of Shcherbaky, Maly Shcherbaky, and Pyatykhatky.

Ukrainian forces launched a counterattack in Kharkiv Oblast in the Kursk direction, near the village of Fiholivka, where Russian troops had crossed the Oskil River and entrenched themselves near Novomlynsk. Ukrainian forces advanced slightly, but the Russian foothold on the right bank of the river remains intact.

In Belgorod Oblast, Ukrainian forces attempted an offensive across the border near the villages of Prilesye, Grafovka, and Demidovka. This operation appears to have both tactical and political objectives.

Specifically, the Ukrainian advance in Belgorod Oblast may have been intended to create an informational and political backdrop ahead of the phone negotiations between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Had Ukraine managed to capture even a few border settlements, Russia’s position in these negotiations might have appeared weaker. This is particularly relevant given Trump’s earlier statements that Ukrainian troops in Kursk Oblast were "saved" thanks to his intervention. Thus, the attempted attack may have been aimed at shifting the agenda of the negotiations.

From a military standpoint, the strike near the Sumy and Belgorod regional border may have been intended to divert Russian forces from more critical directions. Specifically, it could have aimed to reduce the pressure of Russian troops on Ukrainian positions near Sudzha in Kursk Oblast, as well as in Sumy Oblast, where Russian forces have begun an offensive in the Novenkoye–Basovka area. At this stage, the offensive in Belgorod Oblast has not resulted in the capture of settlements and has not significantly altered the battlefield map. However, the situation remains fluid, and definitive conclusions can be drawn only later.

 

Battlefield Maps
Donetsk Oblast

Zaporizhzhia Oblast

Kursk Oblast

Russia has refused to conduct the rotation of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) through Ukrainian territory. Russian authorities fear that allowing rotation via Ukrainian-controlled areas could be used by Ukraine for a military offensive or an attempt to regain control over the plant. As a result, Russia insists that IAEA expert rotations take place exclusively through its own territory. On March 17, 2025, Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, stated that such rotations would be conducted only through Russian-controlled routes. Previously, on February 12, 2025, a scheduled IAEA observer rotation at ZNPP was disrupted.

Amid global shifts caused by U.S. President Donald Trump’s new foreign policy, Turkey is seeking to strengthen its influence within the European Union, where countries are now searching for new security guarantors.

Last week, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sought to demonstrate Turkey’s indispensability to the EU, particularly given the possibility that it may no longer be able to rely on U.S. support in the event of a conflict with Russia. Erdoğan stated, "Since NATO’s future itself is in question, Europe has no choice but to include Turkey as a partner in any new security structure that may replace it if it hopes to maintain its role as a global player. It is impossible to establish European security without Turkey."

With the rapidly changing U.S. policy, the European Union may indeed find itself in need of Turkey. Beyond the situation in Ukraine, Europe is concerned about the future of its defense capabilities, especially as Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that NATO is an unjustifiable expense for the United States. Over the past four years, the U.S. has supplied 64% of the weapons imported by the EU, further highlighting Europe's dependence. Previously, Trump had threatened to withdraw from NATO and demanded that allies increase their defense spending to between 3% and 5% of their GDP, whereas the NATO target remains at 2%.

Turkey not only shares a coastline with both Russia and Ukraine but also controls two strategic straits—the Bosporus and the Dardanelles—which are critical for the movement of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet into the Mediterranean. Additionally, Turkey’s army is the second-largest in NATO after the U.S., with around 400,000 personnel—more than five times the size of the British army—making it a key military force for both European defense and any potential Ukrainian peacekeeping mission. Turkey has already expressed its willingness to contribute troops for such a mission. Turkish soldiers also have an additional advantage, being more battle-hardened than the forces of most European nations.

Moreover, Turkey has a strong defense industry capable of meeting the EU’s growing rearmament needs, particularly in light of Europe’s current arms production crisis.

At the same time, Turkey cannot fully rely on its alliance with Russia. Despite President Erdoğan’s personal rapport with Vladimir Putin, Turkey is concerned that a potential unilateral peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv could shift the balance of power in the Black Sea in Russia’s favor. This presents a strategic threat to Turkey, particularly if Ukraine loses access to the sea.

In the lead-up to possible upcoming elections in Ukraine, political tensions have intensified, as evidenced by the recent arrest of Vadym Chuchkovskyi, deputy head of security for former President Petro Poroshenko and one of his closest associates. Chuchkovskyi is accused of transporting €38 million in cash from Moscow to Kyiv three days before the first round of the 2019 presidential election. It is alleged that these funds were intended for bribing voters and election commission members to secure Poroshenko's advancement to the second round and his victory over Volodymyr Zelensky. However, this version of events raises doubts, as it would have been nearly impossible to distribute such a significant amount among Poroshenko's campaign offices and organize large-scale voter bribery in such a short period. More likely, the case involves embezzlement among the involved parties—Poroshenko himself and his sponsors. Authorities expect Chuchkovskyi to testify on who provided the funds, from which sources, and why a third of the sum was left with an undisclosed individual.

The government has a vested interest in developing this case further, as it serves to discredit Poroshenko, one of the main political rivals of President Zelensky's team in the upcoming elections. Additionally, this case supports the narrative of Russian interference in Ukrainian elections, which may be used for political leverage.

The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) of Ukraine has intensified its investigative actions against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) and its members.

In March 2025, the SBI launched a series of searches and interrogations related to alleged illegal interference in automated systems and the provision of false testimony.

• On March 10, a search was conducted at the HQCJ premises based on a ruling by the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv under Article 376-1, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal interference in the operation of automated systems).

• On March 14, a search was conducted at the residence of the Deputy Chairman of the HQCJ as part of a case under Article 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (misleading the court).

• On March 17–18, members of the HQCJ were summoned for questioning as witnesses in the case of the qualification assessment of Judge Tsarevych A.I. of the Pechersk District Court.

Additionally, a pre-trial investigation is ongoing under Article 191, Part 5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the dismissal of Judge Inna Mykhailivna Otrosh of the Kyiv Commercial Court, based on a recommendation from the HQCJ.

In its official statement on the searches, the HQCJ emphasized that the investigations took place immediately after key decisions made by the Commission. In particular, on March 7, 2025, the Commission scheduled the qualification testing of judges from the Kyiv District Administrative Court for March 17, including E.V. Ablov, P.V. Vovk, A.I. Kuzmenko, T.A. Skachok, O.A. Sokolova, and V.V. Amelokhin (according to NABU recordings, Vovk had instructed Amelokhin to prepare an interrogation and investigation plan). Judges from the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv were also scheduled for assessment, including A.A. Belotserkovets, S.V. Vovk, I.V. Grigorenko, V.P. Kitsuik, R.Y. Kozlov, and K.E. Konstantinova.

These investigative actions against the HQCJ and its members may indicate an increased government control over Ukraine's judicial system. The decisions made by the HQCJ regarding the assessment and testing of judges appear to be a key factor in these investigations. Overall, this development aligns with a broader strategy by the Ukrainian authorities to consolidate control over key sectors of government, particularly in areas previously dominated by Western influence. Following the change of power in the United States, where conservative forces replaced liberal ones, Western influence in Ukraine may have weakened.

 

Ruslan Bortnik, Oksana Krasovska, Andriy Tymchenko
for the Ukrainian Institute of Politics