Spring, normally, brings relief from the bitter cold and struggles of winter. But this year, the coming of spring could start the clock ticking on huge pressure on Ukraine. That pressure could come in several shapes: diplomatic, military and political.
The New York Times reports that, according to Ukrainian and Western officials, the Trump administration has begun to apply “intense pressure… to wrap up peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in the spring.”
The pressure and the timeline agree with earlier reporting by Reuters that “an ambitious March goal for Russia and Ukraine to agree on a peace deal” has been discussed by U.S. negotiators.
Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, appeared to confirm that reporting when he said, “The Americans are proposing the parties end the war by the beginning of this summer and will probably put pressure on the parties precisely according to this schedule.” Clarifying the spring deadline, Zelenksy said the Americans “say that they want to do everything by June.”
The White House has not confirmed the deadline, and U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, denies Zelensky’s claim, saying “that June deadline was mentioned by President Zelenskyy. I don’t think that is anything that the United States has put out there.” But he seems to be the only one. No higher ranked U.S. official, and no official closer to the negotiating team, seems, so far, to have echoed the denial.
Whether true or not, the deadline is no more likely to be enforced than the series of previous deadlines that have come and gone without effect. In addition to agreeing on a deadline, the sides have to agree on an agreement. The deadline “is likely to slip,” sources say, because there is still “a lack of agreement” on key issues, including “how far apart Kyiv and Moscow remain on the key issue of territory, including control over the Donbas region and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.”
The current deadline may have more personal urgency for the Trump administration. The motivation for the June deadline could be the desire to present a promise kept prior to midterm elections. Trump has promised he would quickly end the war since the start of his second term. He reportedly wants a deadline for the war to be done so he can turn his attention to the midterm elections. “The elections are, for them, definitely more important. Let’s not be naïve,” Zelensky explained. According to Ukrainian and Western officials, “Washington is giving Kyiv very little room for manoeuvre as the US midterm elections loom.”
The narrowing room for manoeuvre seems to include territorial concessions and security guarantees. The Times says that the Trump administration is “ramping up pressure” on Ukraine “to make concessions to Russia in a push to end the war by early summer.” Those concessions might involve “ceding the Donbas region to Russia.”
But the pressure to cede Donbas is coming not only from diplomatic pressure from the United States, but also from military pressure from Russia. Despite exaggerated reports of heavy casualties and small gains, Russia is advancing on several fronts, bringing them closer to their goal of acquiring all of Donbas.
More threatening to Ukraine is the rumours swirling of a massive Russian spring offensive. As The New York Times reports, Russia is expected to mount a major offensive this spring “to take more territory and increase pressure on Ukraine at the negotiating table.” Ukraine believes that Russia is amassing troops and weapons, and they are anticipating “a massive offensive” in late spring with the “objective of defeating Ukraine and dictating peace terms to Kyiv by summer’s end.” It is possible that Zelensky has spoken publicly, true or false, of the spring deadline in an attempt to preempt the feared massive Russian spring offensive.
I am told that early spring is not a good time for major offensive operations because of the ‘rasputitsa,’ the thawing of the winter snows that turns all the roads to mud, but that late spring can be. That strategic reality aligns with the late spring deadline. So, the reported June deadline seems to bring both diplomatic and military pressure to Ukraine, both of which could pressure Ukraine to cede Donbas and rush to a diplomatic settlement.
But it is not just diplomatic and military pressure on Ukraine. There is also political pressure for Zelensky. If true, the reports set a deadline; not only for diplomacy, but also – perhaps even sooner – for a referendum and elections.
Reportedly, the deadline is not only for a diplomatic settlement, but for that settlement to be submitted to a referendum at around the same time as a national election is held. Three sources told Reuters that “The U.S. negotiating team – led by special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner – has expressed to Ukrainian counterparts in recent meetings in Abu Dhabi and Miami that it would be best if that vote occurred soon.” Two of those sources said the elections “could occur in May.”
The pressure is said to be intense. Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament, says the Ukrainians have been told that the U.S. could pull out of the diplomatic process “if Ukraine was not prepared to compromise, including by holding elections.” He says that he was informed in Parliament that, in the recent meeting in Abu Dhabi, the U.S. told the Ukrainian delegation to hold national elections by May 15. That same date has come up in other reports. The Trump administration is said to have “pressed Kyiv” to hold the election and referendum by May 15 “or risk losing proposed US security guarantees.” According to both The Financial Times and The New York Times, planning for the election and referendum “has begun.”
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, Zelensky said, “If Americans need elections in Ukraine, if Russians need elections in Ukraine – we are open.” But he said that the logistically challenging elections could only be held under a ceasefire: “Give us two months of a ceasefire – and we will go to elections.”
Insistence to hold elections comes at Zelensky from two sides. One is the hostile pressure to hold elections in order to certify any diplomatic deal as legitimate, since it is being negotiated by a government that has not renewed its mandate since it was elected before the war. The other is Zelensky’s belief that it may be better to hold elections sooner, before his chances of winning begin to narrow.
Zelensky may be feeling not only pressure forcing him to call an election, but pressure to call one while he is still optimistic about victory. Zelensky seems to feel he has a window of opportunity before re-election becomes less likely. He is said to be “confident he would win” if an election is called soon. Wanting to “maximize his re-election prospects,” Zelensky appears to believe that a quick election “could give him an advantage over less prepared competitors.”
But Zelensky’s confidence may be premature. According to sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko, of Freie Universität Berlin, there is a trend toward seeing Zelensky as a capable leader to defend Ukraine against Russia during the war but not as a capable leader of Ukraine after the war. So, he is vulnerable at the polls “if someone emerges as an alternative who, in their eyes, is more likely to represent a better future for Ukraine.” Polling has suggested that Zelensky could lose an election, not only to former top general Valerii Zaluzhny but also to former intelligence chief and current chief of staff Kyrylo Budanov.
Ishchenko told me that “at this point, all the electoral polls are entirely speculative.” He says that those who declare their intention to enter the race, including Zaluzhny, Budanov and even the far-right general Andriy Biletskyi, “can dramatically change the outcome.”
Ishchenko says that, at this point, polling on who Ukrainians trust is more reliable. But Zelensky may fare no better here. Recent polling by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in January indicates that 72% of Ukrainians trust former Commander-in-Chief Valeriy Zaluzhny and 70% trust former intelligence chief and current Zelensky chief of staff Kyrylo Budanov, while only 62% now trust Zelensky. Biletsky’s trust rating polls at 45%.
The deadline for a referendum may be tied to the election for Zelensky, who, according to people close to him, believes “his best chance at re-election… is this year,” especially “if the vote coincides with a referendum.”
A referendum brings pressure because it may be hard to sell a peace plan that surrenders Donbas and NATO to Ukrainians who have been fed throughout the war with promises of recaptured territory and NATO membership. But with so many dead and those promises unfulfilled, Zelensky’s best chance of political survival may be shifting the blame to the U.S. and the responsibility for the decision to Ukrainians.
Zelensky can shift blame to the U.S. by reminding Ukrainians that the U.S. first encouraged Ukraine off the path of diplomacy and onto the path of defeating Russia with promises of whatever they need for as long as they need it; and then, when Ukraine asked for what they need for as long as they need it, the U.S. broke its promise. Recognizing that Ukraine cannot fight on indefinitely, no longer under the shield of the American promise, Zelensky can claim there was no choice but to turn to the negotiating table. By putting the resultant agreement to the people, Zelensky can then go to the polls unburdened of blame for the compromises Ukraine was forced to make.
Should the diplomatic settlement not pass a referendum, both Zelensky’s re-election and any possible peace would be jeopardized, putting Ukraine in great danger.
It is not certain that a deadline has been set or that a deadline would be met. What seems certain is that pressure is increasing on Ukraine to make the compromises needed to end the war. That pressure could come diplomatically. And if it is not met diplomatically, it could be forced militarily. And that is a very good reason to try to meet it diplomatically.
