Reports have emerged that Russia has formally presented the United States with a list of demands it insists must be met to end its ongoing war in Ukraine, now stretching into its third year.
This development, detailed across multiple news outlets, marks a significant escalation in diplomatic efforts as both sides grapple with the conflict’s resolution and broader geopolitical implications.
Drawing from Reuters, The New York Times, AP News, and other sources, this article explores Russia’s conditions, the U.S. response, and the potential ramifications for Ukraine and the international community.
According to Reuters, Russia delivered its list of demands to U.S. officials over the past three weeks through a mix of in-person and virtual discussions.
While the exact contents remain undisclosed, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters that the terms echo previous Russian positions:
Ukraine must abandon its NATO membership aspirations, foreign troops must not be stationed on Ukrainian soil post-conflict, and the international community must recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and four partially occupied Ukrainian provinces—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.
These conditions align with Moscow’s long-standing narrative of protecting its sphere of influence and securing territorial gains made since 2014.
The New York Times reported on March 12 that Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the urgency of addressing Russia’s stance, suggesting that future talks with Moscow would be necessary to clarify what concessions, if any, Russia might offer.
The Times noted that Russia’s insistence on these maximalist terms reflects a strategy to test the resolve of the incoming Trump administration, which has signaled a desire to broker a swift end to the conflict.
The U.S. response, as covered by various outlets, reveals a complex diplomatic landscape.
Reuters highlighted that the Trump administration has not detailed its negotiation strategy, though it appears to be pursuing parallel tracks: one aimed at resetting U.S.-Russia relations and another focused on a Ukraine peace deal.
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East and a key figure in these talks, is reportedly set to visit Moscow this week, according to Fox News, signaling an intent to engage directly with the Kremlin.
AP News reported a shift in U.S. policy under Trump, noting that on February 23, the U.S. diverged from its European allies by refusing to explicitly blame Russia for the war in U.N. votes.
This move, coupled with the exclusion of Ukraine from initial talks in Riyadh on February 18 (as per Reuters), has raised concerns in Kyiv and European capitals about a potential deal that could sideline Ukraine’s interests.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, speaking to Reuters on March 3, emphasized that Kyiv remains committed to diplomacy but stressed the need for U.S. support to secure a “reliable and durable peace.”
The exclusion of Ukraine from early negotiations has drawn sharp criticism. Reuters’ February 19 coverage of the Riyadh talks noted that Trump brushed aside Kyiv’s concerns, asserting that Ukraine “should have entered talks much earlier.”
Kyiv Independent reported on March 13 that Ukraine fears Russia could exploit any temporary ceasefire to regroup and launch further offensives, a sentiment echoed by Western security officials cited by Bloomberg on March 10.
These officials suggested that Putin’s “maximalist” demands are deliberately untenable, designed to fracture unity among Ukraine, the U.S., and Europe.
European leaders, meanwhile, are wary of a U.S.-Russia deal that might reward Moscow’s aggression.
The New York Times underscored this tension on March 12, quoting Rubio’s call for G7 diplomats to prioritize ending the war while shrugging off Trump’s provocative threats to annex Canada—a remark that has further strained transatlantic relations.
AP News added that Trump’s meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and planned talks with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer this week reflect efforts to mend fences with allies dismayed by the U.S.’s unilateral approach.
The stakes are high for all parties. Fox News reported on March 13 that Russia’s demands come amid battlefield developments, such as the recapture of Sudzha in the Kursk region, bolstering Moscow’s negotiating leverage.
The Kyiv Independent cited a Moscow think tank document from February, drafted with ties to the FSB, which proposed even harsher terms—including a demilitarized zone in southern Ukraine and the dismantling of Kyiv’s current government—though its influence on Kremlin policy remains unclear.
For the U.S., the challenge lies in balancing Trump’s promise of a quick resolution—reiterated by AP News in July 2024 when he claimed he could end the war in a day—with the risk of alienating allies and emboldening Putin.
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, quoted by Reuters on January 27, indicated Moscow is still awaiting U.S. approval for its new ambassador to Washington, suggesting that diplomatic channels remain strained.
