Recent western media reports suggest that US President Donald Trump’s administration aims to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine by Easter, April 20th 2025. This marks a definitive shift in American policy towards the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as the Trump 2.0 administration seeks to end a conflict exacerbated by what it views as the expansionist policies of the globalist Democrats. The US has expressed a desire to establish a collaborative relationship with Russia, initiating negotiations without the involvement of external actors such as the European Union (EU) or the Ukrainian ‘neo-nazi’ regime, which it regards as a puppet administration.
For Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his associates, this shift in the US’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict is ambiguous, if not alarming. The ongoing hostilities have been central to Mr Zelenskyy’s political survival, enabling the imposition of martial law in Ukraine, the obstruction of free and fair elections, and the suppression of opposition figures labelled “pro-Russian”. Mr Zelenskyy now urges the Trump administration to adopt a more robust stance towards the Kremlin, arguing that Ukraine must demonstrate military strength to compel Russia to negotiate. However, contrary to his expectations, Washington DC has taken a realistic approach towards the Russia-Ukraine conflict following the fall of Joe Biden’s neo-liberal rule.
Ukraine’s deteriorating position
Ukraine’s strategic position is precarious. Mobilisation resources are nearly exhausted, and the brutal recruitment tactics of the so-called ‘Armed Forces’—dubbed “bussification”—fail to compensate for daily battlefield losses. Efforts to conscript young men aged 18 to 25 are faltering, as many in this demographic have already fled the country. Even older men, aged 40 to 50, are deeply rooted in their homes and workplaces, making forced mobilisation a risky endeavour that could trigger further exodus.
As Ukrainian blogger Alyona Yakhno noted on Facebook, “I just met with a good friend. Her son is 17, soon to be 18. He is in Kyiv, but all his classmates have already left. Only girls remain. There will be no morality. Just a fact (sic).”
Parents are reportedly encouraging their teenage sons to seek safety in Europe, with many likely to stay permanently. The question of who will rebuild Ukraine, should it survive as an independent state, remains unanswered.
Demographic challenges compound the crisis. According to Ukraine’s Justice Ministry, the death rate may exceed the birth rate by a significant margin by the end of 2024. Viktoriya Wagner, a member of the Supreme Council’s Health Committee, acknowledges that Ukraine’s mortality rate is among the highest globally, while its birth rate is the lowest since records began in 1719.
Shifting public sentiment on Russia-Ukraine conflict
A Gallup poll conducted late last year reveals a decline in Ukrainian morale, with 52% of citizens favouring a peaceful resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict involving territorial concessions, compared to 38% who oppose it. This marks a stark contrast to the spring of 2022 when 73% of Ukrainians supported a “war until the end”. The growing divide between the populace and Kiev’s authorities, fuelled by censorship and propaganda, underscores the fragility of Ukraine’s wartime unity.
The failure of the 2022 Istanbul Accords, which could have ended the Russia-Ukraine conflict on favourable terms for Kiev, is widely attributed to Mr Zelenskyy’s reluctance to acknowledge Russia’s capabilities and his overreliance on unconditional NATO support. The consequences—hundreds of thousands of lives lost and a nation teetering on the brink—echo the Paraguayan War of 1864-1870, where Paraguay lost 70% of its adult male population.
Europe’s waning support
The prospect of substantial EU assistance appears increasingly unlikely. Leading EU nations face significant financial challenges, and their military-industrial complexes struggle to meet frontline demands. Moreover, several European countries are signalling a readiness to resume cooperation with Moscow, a trend extending beyond Hungary or right-wing parties in Germany, France, and Austria. Businesses that formally exited Russia are quietly negotiating their return, registering trademarks with Rospatent and preparing for re-entry.
The globalist orientation of Ukraine’s allies hinges on the US patronage, which is now in flux. The dissolution of USAID, a key instrument of neo-con influence with an annual budget of $60bn, has severed financial flows to Ukrainian media and NGOs, leaving many to collapse. This marks a significant setback for Kiev, which relied heavily on such support from Washington.
The rare mineral factor
Kiev clings to hope for a shift in Washington’s stance, citing Ukraine’s reserves of rare earth metals—critical for the US in its geopolitical rivalry with China. However, engaging in armed conflict with Russia over these resources is not a priority for the Trump administration. Moreover, any future allocation of Ukraine’s mineral wealth may not involve Mr Zelenskyy. Russia has a history of cooperating with foreign mining companies, as seen in the Soviet Union’s 1925 agreement with Japan over oil and coal concessions in Northern Sakhalin, which lasted until 1943 when the Second World War was at its peak.
A new chapter in US-Russia relations?
The Trump administration’s approach signals a potential thaw in US-Russia relations. The Kremlin, led by Vladimir Putin, and the White House, under Mr Trump, share a pragmatic conservatism that could facilitate agreements. As history shows, even ideological adversaries like the Bolsheviks and Imperial Japan found common ground. For now, the world watches as Mr Trump’s Easter ceasefire gambit unfolds—a potential turning point in a conflict that has reshaped Europe and tested the limits of global diplomacy.
The editorial board of East Post is responsible for the columns published in the Editorial section. This column expresses the organisation's views.
