Did Russia blink in its talks with Trump? It's highly unlikely, some experts say

thither was single predominate  call into question that came come out the U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska late Friday that was tough to answer: Did Russian President Vladimir Putin blink at all?

As U.S. President Donald Trump burned up the phone lines Saturday in talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, the rather vague notions that lingered following the short, ambiguous news conference involving the two leaders solidified into a firm "no."

Trump went into the high-stakes meeting saying he'd be very upset if Russia did not agree to — or propose — a ceasefire.

He came out saying there's no deal until there's a deal and that the the two leaders made progress toward peace. The U.S. President appears to have abandoned the notion of a preliminary ceasefire altogether in favour of some sort of comprehensive peace settlement.

That has been one of Moscow's key demands all along.

"There was no mention of the term ceasefire," said Michael Carpenter, a former U.S. Ambassador and permanent representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

"There was obviously no agreement. I wasn't expecting there to be an agreement because, frankly, all along I've been saying that the fundamentals don't align here — namely that Russia wants the subjugation of Ukraine, and President Zelenskyy is not going to allow for the capitulation of his country."

European leaders have favoured the notion of a ceasefire and even a reinforcement of Ukraine with some sort of Western troop presence that would discourage Russia from renewing the war at some point in the future.

"And there was really no way that President Trump could square that with what he's heard from European leaders and President Zelenskyy," Carpenter said.

Trump said on the way home from Alaska that one of the next steps will be for a three-way summit involving himself, Zelenskyy and Putin. He laid the groundwork for that by inviting Zelenskyy to the White House on Monday for preliminary talks.

Experts across the defence and foreign policy spectrums agree that external monitors and international security guarantees for Ukraine are the only way a ceasefire — or even a full-fledged peace settlement — between Russia and Ukraine would have a chance of success.

And there was no indication from Putin on Friday that he was prepared to accept anything like that.

Benjamin Jensen, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., said Moscow has historically used ceasefires more as a way to position forces on the battlefield than as a way to seek long-term peace.

Putin’s maximalist war goals in Ukraine

"To give the agreement teeth, negotiators should define clear, automatic sanctions triggers that would take effect immediately if Russia violates the ceasefire, ensuring that any breach carries predictable and escalating costs," Jensen said in an assessment written ahead of the Alaska summit.

"Finally, even under a truce, NATO and Western states must maintain robust commitments to Ukraine's defence capacity through training, equipping, and ensuring interoperability across allied forces so that Moscow understands renewed aggression will meet immediate and credible resistance."

Following Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the launching of a proxy war in Ukraine's two eastern oblasts (provinces), the two sides, with the help of European nations, struck agreements — known as the Minsk accords — to end the fighting.

"Past failures like Minsk illustrate that vague buffer zones and unarmed monitors do not stop hostilities," Jensen said.

"A ceasefire in Ukraine must be more than a pause. It needs enforcement across the land, sea, air, cyber, and space domains backed by sanctions and robust defence commitments."

In March, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer proposed a peacekeeping force made up of several NATO countries, including Canada, but it appears to be on the back burner for the moment.

Starmer's call was met with a warm response in Ottawa, where just prior to the federal election, then-defence minister Bill Blair stated the government was "ready and able" to contribute troops should there be a ceasefire.

But Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan said critical issues are still hanging in the balance.

What kind of force? How heavily armed should it be? Other questions such as whether coalition troops simply monitor or have the authority to enforce the ceasefire also need to be settled, if and when there's a cessation of hostilities.

"There's a lot of unknown at the moment, but one thing is for sure is that they will need a requirement for training and development for Ukrainian forces to assume their own security," Carignan said. "We are already there in terms of support for Ukraine. So this will continue, but the rest is currently under development."

Canada, the U.K. And the U.S. had troops conducting military and security force training in Ukraine prior to the full Russian invasion in February 2022. Those forces were withdrawn with the onset of major fighting.

The military has struggled to recruit, train and retain members for the last several years. Senior Canadian defence officials have acknowledged that they are short 12,722 personnel — both regular and reserve forces.

Carignan was asked whether Canada has the capacity to be able to conduct a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine.

"It depends, again, what the demands are, where we could contribute," she said while underlining that, in the end, it's a decision for Prime Minister Mark Carney and his cabinet to make.

Senior reporter, defence and security

---

---