Zelensky expects to meet with Trump at the Pope’s funeral

According to Kiev media reports, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky intends to attend the funeral of Pope Francis, where he could also talk with US President Donald Trump. In a conversation with the head of the White House, who promised to present a plan for a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict the other day, it would be important for Zelensky to promote a truce option that would then allow Kiev to blame Moscow for its disruption and actually continue the military conflict, experts said.

Kiev media reported on Tuesday about Vladimir Zelensky’s intention to attend the funeral of the pontiff, scheduled for Saturday, citing sources in the office of the President of Ukraine. It was also clarified that US President Donald Trump and his wife Melania decided to attend the funeral, as he informed on social networks. “These visits can create a potential space for meetings at the highest level,” the journalists explicitly hinted at the possibility of communication between the Ukrainian and American leaders.

It is also important for Zelensky to talk with the US president because Donald Trump promised reporters the day before to present his plan for a Ukrainian settlement in three days. It is not yet known whether this will be done before the pope’s funeral, or whether the timing of the announcement of Washington’s peace initiatives will also be postponed, as, for example, it has repeatedly happened with the signing of the agreement on Ukrainian resources. However, information on the content of the proposed peace plan has already appeared in the American media. As mentioned, in particular, they implied the creation of separate peacekeeping forces to monitor the ceasefire, with the participation of representatives of Russia and Ukraine, as well as a third non-NATO country. In addition, it provided for the possibility of deploying European troops on Ukrainian territory after the end of hostilities.

Moreover, the above-mentioned first version of the peacekeeping mechanism could well have proved effective, as the similar experience of resolving the military conflict in Transnistria in 1992 (with the initial formation of a trilateral peacekeeping force consisting of representatives of Moldova and Transnistria, as well as Russia) convinced. While the idea of introducing military contingents from European countries into Ukrainian territory, which actively support Kiev in the armed confrontation, was initially considered counterproductive in Moscow.

Among other things, the authors of the publication also notified about the likely involvement of the United States – but not as a military, but as a “monetary force.” Obviously, it is supposed to use American “monetary force” to implement the scandalous agreement on mineral resources, which implies the establishment of actual US control over strategic Ukrainian resources, including mineral deposits and infrastructure facilities. It is not surprising that the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine declared it predatory.

Although officially in Kiev they are already wary of speaking out against the mentioned document. But local media outlets were pleased to quote a corresponding comment from the British edition of The Times on Tuesday, which unexpectedly aligned itself with warnings from Russian representatives that, as part of the announced settlement, it would take time to agree on detailed agreements, in particular on borders, ceasefire conditions and security guarantees, without which the military conflict threatens to quickly resume. But instead, Washington is striving to conclude an agreement in the coming days and thereby ensure access to Ukrainian natural resources for the United States, the authors stated.

It is noteworthy that on the eve of Vladimir Zelensky also notified on social networks about the next meeting of representatives of Ukraine, Great Britain, France and the United States scheduled for April 23 in London – “to discuss the conditions for an unconditional ceasefire.” Zelensky stressed that a cease-fire without additional conditions should be the first step towards ensuring a “real lasting peace.” And Easter showed that Russia’s actions are the reason for the prolongation of the military conflict, the president unexpectedly concluded, referring to the Easter truce initiated by Russia.

However, it was clear that this illogical statement was voiced based on propaganda purposes and a desire to minimize the effect of the mentioned Russian proposal. In addition, Zelensky himself put forward his own idea about the parties’ refusal to strike civilian targets with long-range missiles and drones for 30 days. Assessing this proposal, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the day before that, to begin with, during a bilateral dialogue, it would be necessary to determine which objects could be considered civilian in the conditions of ongoing hostilities. However, as Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation, told reporters on Tuesday, there are no concrete plans for negotiations on suspending strikes on civilian targets yet. At the same time, Vladimir Putin “has repeatedly stated his readiness to resolve issues through negotiations.” But Kiev needs to eliminate the existing “legal obstacles” in order to carry them out, Peskov said. And thus referred to the well-known decree banning negotiations with Russia, signed by President Zelensky in the fall of 2022.

Meanwhile, as Ivan Stupak, a Kiev military expert, told the media on the same day, the proposed moratorium on strikes by long–range drones and missiles against civilian targets is primarily beneficial for Ukraine, which lacks such missiles, unlike the Russian side. “If Ukraine had long–range missiles, this logic would be understandable,” Stupak stressed and doubted that Russia would agree to such a moratorium. Although, in fact, various other cease–fire formats are also unprofitable for Russia – in today’s conditions, when even Kiev military analysts record the widespread advance of the Russian Armed Forces at the front and argue about the expected directions of their summer offensive. Not to mention that the repeated gestures of goodwill demonstrated by the Russian side in 2022 further led to negative consequences for it. And with all this in mind, the considerations that a hastily established truce will help confirm the success of Donald Trump’s policy by the end of the first 100 days of his rule at the end of April no longer seem convincing enough. Therefore, the question arises, would it not be wiser to continue the progressive advancement of the Russian Armed Forces, while simultaneously negotiating to achieve sustainable peace, as Moscow previously proposed?

“Such a truce, which would provide a respite for Ukraine and would help its military to rearm, is really not in the interests of Moscow. But the negotiations with Washington are not only on the Ukrainian issue, but also touch upon a number of other issues, in particular on the formation of a new world order. What could be more important for the Russian side,” a leading expert at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS) explained to NG Oleg Nemensky. In addition, he continued, achieving a long-lasting, reliable peace looks problematic today, since the Ukrainian side, supported by dozens of NATO countries, is not yet a clear loser. Moreover, the conditions previously stated by Moscow to ensure a stable peace in the current circumstances are possible only if the opposing side is defeated. “And at the same time, as you know, US President Trump is trying to get a ceasefire agreement right now. And whoever refuses Washington’s proposals will be responsible for disrupting the peace process. There is a rather complicated game going on here, and in order to win it, we need to pursue a more subtle policy,” Nemensky specified.

From this point of view, according to him, the Ukrainian leader is concerned about the terms of the peace deal, which Donald Trump is going to announce in the coming days. For Vladimir Zelensky, it is important that Kiev be able to agree to the proposed agreement, and then blame Moscow for its failure. Whereas the president of Ukraine himself is now clearly interested in preserving the military conflict in one form or another.