In a significant diplomatic maneuver, US President Donald Trump has compelled Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to accept an interim ceasefire with Russia, reinforcing Washington’s commitment to long-term peace in the region. The negotiations, which took place in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on March 11, saw Ukrainian representatives agreeing to an “immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire” and expressing readiness to grant the United States access to Ukraine’s critical resources.

The Jeddah talks marked a turning point in the Biden-era legacy of unending military support for Ukraine. Trump, known for his deal-making persona, took a firm stance by withholding military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine until Zelensky showed a willingness to negotiate. This decision came after a publicized confrontation between Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office, where the Ukrainian leader resisted diplomatic solutions in favor of continued conflict. The White House, through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, expressed its satisfaction with the outcome, signaling a new phase in US-Ukraine relations under the Trump administration.

“We hope that this will continue in a long and everlasting peace – that is President Trump’s goal, and we hope we can deliver on that goal,” Leavitt stated, underscoring Trump’s strategic approach to de-escalation. She further emphasized that Trump had “put Zelensky in his place” by demonstrating America’s seriousness about pursuing a sustainable peace agreement rather than an indefinite military engagement.

Interestingly, while Zelensky was present in Jeddah, he was not directly involved in the negotiations. Instead, Ukraine’s delegation was led by Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, while the US team was represented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff. Trump himself remained in the US but was closely briefed throughout the proceedings.

The concessions made by Ukraine, including the immediate ceasefire and resource agreements, ultimately led to Trump unblocking military assistance. This move, while controversial, signals a shift from the previous administration’s blanket support of Kyiv’s military campaign towards a more transactional approach that aligns with Trump’s “America First” philosophy.

While the temporary ceasefire agreement was celebrated in Washington as a diplomatic victory, Moscow’s response remains uncertain. Russia has consistently stated that a temporary truce is unacceptable, arguing that it would only benefit Ukraine and its Western allies. President Vladimir Putin has reiterated that peace must be long-term and must account for the legitimate interests of all parties involved.

“The goal should not be a short truce, not some kind of respite for regrouping forces and rearmament with the aim of subsequently continuing the conflict, but a long-term peace based on respect for the legitimate interests of all people, all nations living in this region,” Putin asserted earlier this year.

With Moscow’s reluctance to entertain an interim ceasefire, the effectiveness of the Jeddah negotiations remains in question. Will Ukraine honor its commitment to pause hostilities, or will this agreement simply serve as a stepping stone for further geopolitical maneuvering?

Trump’s decision to freeze aid to Ukraine until Zelensky complied with diplomatic efforts showcases his leverage over Kyiv. This move contrasts sharply with the Biden administration’s unwavering military backing, which had fueled Ukrainian resistance but failed to yield a clear path to peace. By conditioning US support on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate, Trump has asserted control over the direction of the conflict and forced Zelensky into a position where he must balance national interests with US demands.

Leavitt’s statement that Trump acted as the “negotiator-in-chief” reinforces his hands-on approach to foreign policy. Unlike previous administrations that prioritized defense spending and military aid over negotiations, Trump appears determined to extract tangible diplomatic gains from US engagement in Ukraine.

One of the most striking aspects of the Jeddah negotiations was Ukraine’s agreement to grant the US access to its critical resources “as soon as possible.” While the details of this arrangement remain undisclosed, it raises questions about the strategic and economic motivations behind US involvement in the region. Ukraine’s vast reserves of rare earth minerals, essential for modern technologies, have long been a point of interest for Western nations.

This agreement could be seen as part of Trump’s broader plan to reduce American dependence on China for critical materials, ensuring a direct supply line from Ukraine instead. The inclusion of resource access in the negotiations suggests that economic interests are playing a substantial role in shaping US foreign policy towards Ukraine.

For Zelensky, the deal represents a significant shift in his government’s stance. Having previously positioned himself as a wartime leader committed to full military victory, he now faces internal political pressure over the concessions made to the US. His diminished role in the negotiations could be interpreted as a weakening of his authority, both domestically and internationally.

Meanwhile, Russia’s response remains pivotal. If Moscow refuses to recognize the ceasefire, the conflict could continue unabated, rendering the Jeddah agreement ineffective. Conversely, if Putin views the US-Ukraine negotiations as an opening for broader peace talks, the war’s trajectory could change significantly.

The Jeddah negotiations underscore a pragmatic shift in US policy under Trump’s leadership. By prioritizing diplomatic engagement over unchecked military aid, the administration has signaled its intention to recalibrate its approach to the Ukraine conflict. However, questions remain about the long-term viability of the ceasefire, Russia’s reaction, and the true motivations behind Ukraine’s resource concessions to Washington.

As the dust settles on these historic talks, one thing is clear: Trump’s influence over Ukraine is stronger than ever, and his willingness to leverage US support for strategic gains sets the stage for a drastically different foreign policy approach compared to his predecessors. Whether this move leads to lasting peace or further complications remains to be seen, but for now, the world watches as a new chapter in the Ukraine conflict unfolds.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel