Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not a man who minces words. Nor is he a leader willing to cede an inch more than necessity dictates. Yet, as negotiations over a potential ceasefire unfold with the U.S. and Russia, the Ukrainian president finds himself navigating a geopolitical minefield in which his country’s fate is discussed, dissected, and decided upon in rooms where he is not always the loudest voice.
On March 15, Zelenskyy issued a decree appointing a new Ukrainian delegation for international peace negotiations. Andriy Yermak, the most powerful chief of staff in Ukraine’s history, has been placed at its helm, a figure whose ability to maneuver in the corridors of power has earned him the nickname of “The Fixer.”
The delegation, which includes Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha, Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, and Yermak’s deputy Pavlo Palisa, has already been active, securing a 30-day ceasefire in Jeddah with limited conditions. That agreement, while a diplomatic milestone, came with whispers of U.S. companies gaining access to Ukrainian mineral reserves, a detail that has not escaped the attention of Kyiv’s political class.
Yet, the stakes are far greater now. Trump, in his characteristic style, has teased “some pretty good news” regarding a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. The problem? That news may not be as good for Ukraine as it is for those who favor a swift end to U.S. involvement in the war. 
The Red Lines That Will Not Be Crossed
Ukraine’s position is clear: there will be no further territorial concessions to Russia, the return of abducted Ukrainian children and civilians is non-negotiable, and Kyiv demands ironclad international security guarantees. These principles are not just talking points; they define Ukraine’s very sovereignty and its vision for the post-war order.
But a position on paper is not the same as leverage at the negotiating table. A senior Ukrainian official, speaking to The Independent, warned of Russia’s well-known negotiating tactics. “We expect another trick,” the source said bluntly.
Zelenskyy himself has acknowledged the precariousness of the moment. “We will not recognize any occupied territories as Russian in any case,” he reaffirmed. But he also conceded the complexity of the territorial issue. “It should be resolved later, at the negotiating table,” he said, in a rare moment of flexibility on an otherwise rigid stance.
Trump’s Deal: The Art of a Ceasefire?
The involvement of former U.S. President Donald Trump in the negotiations is an irony of history. It was Trump who once attempted to withhold military aid from Ukraine, an act that led to his first impeachment. Now, he finds himself brokering a deal that could decide the fate of a nation still fighting for its survival.
To Ukraine, the concern is not just what Trump might offer but how Putin might interpret the terms. Moscow has demanded that Kyiv abandon its NATO aspirations and formally cede the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. These demands, in the words of French President Emmanuel Macron, are “unacceptable.”
David Lammy, the UK Foreign Secretary, framed the ceasefire negotiations as a test of Putin’s intentions. “He can’t simply say he is ready to end this war – he has to prove it,” Lammy wrote in The Observer. The issue is that Putin has no incentive to prove anything; a ceasefire, for him, is a tool for consolidation, a moment to regroup and fortify before the next phase of conflict.
The Tactical Dilemma
For Ukraine, agreeing to freeze the front lines means acknowledging that some occupied areas will remain in Russian hands for the foreseeable future. This is a hard pill to swallow.
“If you’re asking whether Ukraine will accept that some of its land belongs to Russia, no, Ukraine will not accept this,” a Ukrainian official told Politico. Adding, “But Ukraine cannot recover all of its territory right now by military force. Some of our land will need to be returned diplomatically, which can take time.”
The difficulty lies in defining what a temporary arrangement means in a conflict that has already defied expectations. Would a ceasefire hold, or would it simply serve as another pause before further aggression? Zelenskyy has his suspicions: “The delaying of the process is exactly because of what I said. They want to improve their situation on the battlefield.”
Europe Steps Forward
If the United States, under Trump’s influence, is looking for an exit strategy, European nations are trying to fill the void. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, after convening a summit of 29 leaders, has initiated plans for an international peacekeeping force. “Sooner or later, [Putin] is going to have to come to the table and engage in serious discussions,” he declared.
Meanwhile, Macron has argued for greater European defense autonomy. “Those who buy Patriot should be offered the new-generation Franco-Italian SAMP/T. Those who buy the F-35 should be offered the Rafale. That’s the way to increase the rate of production,” he stated, making clear that the current reliance on U.S. military equipment is not sustainable.
Europe understands what a Trump-negotiated peace deal might mean: a Ukraine left vulnerable to future Russian aggression, without firm NATO backing, and with a frozen conflict that serves Putin’s interests more than anyone else’s.
The Verdict: Who Speaks for Ukraine?
At the heart of the negotiations is a fundamental question: How much say does Ukraine truly have in shaping its future?
Zelenskyy, Yermak, and their delegation are firm on their principles, but international pressure is mounting. A ceasefire without solid guarantees risks becoming another Minsk Agreement – a document signed, praised, and then ignored as the reality of war resumed.
Trump’s “pretty good news” remains opaque. It may bring Ukraine a temporary reprieve, or it may saddle Kyiv with a deal that weakens its long-term position. Either way, Ukraine’s voice in these negotiations is not just about what it is willing to say, but what the world is willing to hear. And for now, Kyiv is still speaking, even if the room is filled with competing whispers of power, leverage, and strategic ambiguity.
