Behind the Curtain: How Moscow Handles Ceasefire Talks with Washington

Department of Research, Studies and International News 04-07-2025

Despite international headlines focusing on diplomacy, a closer look reveals a different story unfolding behind closed doors. Kirill Dmitriev, a close confidant of Vladimir Putin and Russia’s investment envoy, made a discreet visit to the White House last week. The trip, largely unnoticed by the public, has sparked concerns about the true intentions behind ongoing talks about a supposed ceasefire in Ukraine.

Dmitriev, who was born in Kyiv and educated in the United States at Stanford and Harvard, now leads Russia’s $10 billion sovereign wealth fund. Beyond finance, he plays a strategic role as one of Putin’s primary liaisons in diplomatic efforts surrounding Ukraine. His recent U.S. visit, the highest-profile one by a Russian official since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, was cloaked in secrecy. Yet his social media post showing a flight plan made a loud statement: a sanctioned Russian official was welcomed into the heart of the American government.

This move appears calculated. As President Donald Trump’s administration continues to frame foreign relations in transactional terms, Dmitriev’s presence seems intended to appeal to that exact mindset. Tasked with keeping the current U.S. leadership engaged, Dmitriev is navigating American frustrations surrounding a so-called ceasefire that remains largely theoretical.

In typical Kremlin fashion, Dmitriev deflected blame for the continued violence. On Telegram, he accused unnamed actors, widely understood to be Ukraine and its European allies, of sabotaging dialogue efforts. He claimed that these forces deliberately misrepresent Russia’s intentions to prevent progress, investing substantial resources into disrupting diplomacy.

The skepticism is not limited to European capitals. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, speaking from NATO headquarters, expressed clear frustration with Moscow’s conduct. “Putin is dragging his feet,” Lammy said, denouncing the continuation of Russian strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. He emphasized that genuine peace efforts require a complete halt to hostilities, something that is far from reality.

Initially, some Ukrainian officials hoped that recent talks might mark the beginning of a genuine peace process. However, those hopes have dwindled. Analysts now believe Russia is preparing for a renewed military campaign in the warmer months ahead.

The limited agreement, brokered under Trump’s mediation, was narrow in scope. It aimed to pause attacks on civil infrastructure and ease maritime tensions in the Black Sea. However, the main battlefront in eastern Ukraine has seen little to no reprieve. Both sides have accused the other of violating energy infrastructure protections.

One major criticism of the agreement, discussed during meetings in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, is that it lacks enforceable mechanisms. According to Professor Phillips O’Brien of the University of St Andrews, “There is no ceasefire. Attacks continue, particularly on energy facilities. The maritime section of the agreement is minor, and fighting along the contact line persists.”

O’Brien adds that both Kyiv and Moscow are engaging in diplomatic theater, seeking to stay in favor with Trump rather than pursuing genuine peace. For the Kremlin, admitting a refusal to negotiate would be politically risky, so they maintain a façade of cooperation while continuing military operations.

Orysia Lutsevych of Chatham House echoes this sentiment. She points out that Russia has not committed to any tangible ceasefire, and that even limited concessions are tied to demands such as sanctions relief, particularly from European financial restrictions.

Russia’s message to the U.S. is clear: stop investing in what they frame as an unwinnable war, and shift focus to economic collaboration. They aim to shift blame onto Ukraine, portraying Kyiv as an obstacle to peace.

Critics argue that Washington has entered these talks without sufficient skepticism. The Trump administration’s approach appears to lack both verifiability and accountability, an oversight considering Russia’s history of flouting agreements.

On the Ukrainian side, pressure to remain in Washington’s good graces is intense. Trump’s previous confrontations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have cast a long shadow. Continued access to U.S. weapons and intelligence now hinges on how Ukraine is perceived in peace negotiations.

Meanwhile, reports of Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, like the shelling in Kherson on April 1 that left 45,000 people without power, undermine the notion that any truce is in effect. Russia’s stance remains unchanged: preconditions for peace still include unrealistic demands such as a United Nations-led transitional administration in Ukraine, essentially advocating regime change.

Dmitriev’s role is becoming increasingly evident. Invited by Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, Dmitriev has used his platform to suggest that peace depends on economic cooperation, cooperation that would only begin after negotiations are concluded. This sequencing appears designed to stall progress while courting American business interests.

Russia is also attempting to lure the U.S. into rare earth mining partnerships, potentially undermining Trump’s own attempts to secure such deals with Ukraine. The strategy echoes past Russian tactics: use diplomacy as a smokescreen to pursue military and economic objectives, as seen in Syria and during the Minsk negotiations a decade ago.

Even Trump himself acknowledged on March 25 that Russia might be deliberately stalling peace talks to buy time for territorial gains. Yet, the administration continues to offer more incentives to Moscow than pressure, an imbalance noted by former diplomat Richard Haass. He warns that U.S. policy currently leans too heavily in Russia’s favor, leaving Ukraine exposed.

While Zelenskyy and others argue Trump could force Russia into compliance if he chose to, there has been little indication that such action is forthcoming.