By Kester Kenn Klomegah*
MOSCOW | 30th April 2025 (IDN) –
Global leaders have not yet answered Russia’s significant questions around a proposed Ukraine ceasefire. President Vladimir Putin is still searching for the candidates with the right geopolitical mindset and skills for decoding the reasons for the “special military operation” that the Kremlin, with Federation Council’s and States Duma’s approval, began in Ukraine. While Russia heartily adores and supports the idea of a ceasefire with Ukraine, none of the key world leaders have qualified, in principle, as a peacemaker.
Putin has said that any peace agreement must address what Moscow sees as the root causes of the conflict: essentially a tug of war between Russia and the West over Ukraine’s future and the post-Soviet enlargement of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) towards Russia’s borders.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said in turn that Putin’s conditions for a ceasefire are unrealistic and has accused the Russian leader of wanting to continue the war. In straight forward words, Putin underlined the fact that the ceasefire would have to ensure that Ukraine did not simply use it to regroup, and that key questions about verification of a truce would need to be clarified.
Global leaders are perplexed, racing to make concessions for peace in favour of Ukraine talks. Global leaders, still sitting at the crossroads, are adamant to grasp the policy President Vladimir Putin laid out in his speech at the Federal Assembly (Federation Council and the States Duma) launching the ‘special military operation’ late February 2022. Thereafter, Putin has repeatedly underlined the fundamental reasons for this action on Ukraine, and that position has not absolutely changed, even with the latest intervention by the United States President Donald Trump.
Return to the Root Causes
Displaying horrific defiance to return and revisit the primary causes as basis for crafting sustainable pathways to peace posed difficulty for many global players who, in these three years, have attempted talking peace with Russia and Ukraine. Reiterating Putin’s key points on 22nd February 2022, could be useful here. On this occasion, Putin submitted proposals for approval, for the first time, to use armed forces abroad. Further to that on February 24, the same year, in his lengthy address, Putin expressed his biggest concern about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year.
“I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border,” Putin furiously stressed in his speech.
Putin asked, in between his speech, a series of questions such: Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?
On February 22, that same year of starting to ‘demilitarize and denazify’ Ukraine, Vladimir Putin answering media questions from well-known Russian correspondent, Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel, resonated the question concerning the Minsk agreements. The Minsk agreements – the Minsk Package of Measures was to settle the situation in southeastern Ukraine. The Kremlin, being truly the author of these documents, was interested in seeing this package of measures implemented, because it was the result of a compromise. Ukraine, in absolute terms, ignored its part in fulfilling the legitimate obligations.
Historical developments, to some extent, played an integral part. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience served as a good lesson for Russians, because it has shown that the paralysis of power and will has been, in the first step, towards complete degradation and oblivion. The undeniable fact was that it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to re-dividing the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) together with the western allies has created catastrophes. First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. And that was followed by bombing and twisting powers upside down in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Despite Russia’s persistent warnings, and an array of promises not to expand eastwards even by an inch, NATO capitalized on the disintegration of the Soviet and continued its plans to expand to the borders of Russian Federation. Despite all that, in December 2021, Russia made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. The United States and NATO pursued their joint objectives, while neglecting Russia’s interests. But it again failed, totally unacceptable for Russia and hence the final decision to start ‘special military operation’ with permission of the Federation Council and the State Duma of the Russian Federation.
In this context, the purpose of this operation was to protect people who have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. Russia sought to ‘demilitarize and denazify’ its neighbouring former Soviet republic of Ukraine. Russia, however, pledged to create favourable conditions for overcoming both invincible development and security problems and to strengthen borders, and build a common future with Russia.
Russia’s Peace Plan for Ukraine
Under all these circumstances, what’s Russia’s Peace plan for Ukraine? The Kremlin has categorically stated that its goals were ‘demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine’ as a condition for ensuring Russia’s security. And there are valid signs that Russia could agree to a ceasefire as proposed by the U.S. President Donald Trump. Amid suggestion to hold negotiations with Washington and, most probably prospective suggestions by China, India, Brazil and South Africa – these staunch members of BRICS+ association, have been unsuccessful during the past couple of years to convince Russia, on their platform, to accept their peace efforts, even as “resolving conflicts by diplomacy and through negotiations’ stated in their annual summit declarations. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made outstanding claims that pathways, by the BRICS+ members, to making peace in Ukraine were acceptable for Moscow. Simply, they could not be implemented, due to the fact that the Kremlin’s requirements and conditions were not taken into consideration. A couple of times Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told Chinese and South African leaders that their proposals were not formally formulated on paper.
Quite often, since the beginning of 2025, President Vladimir Putin reiterated his position with the United States and European leaders that political authorities in Ukraine are not legitimate. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has remained in power beyond the end of his mandate in May 2024. “This would be in order to hold democratic elections and bring to power a capable government enjoying the trust of the people and then to start talks with them about a peace treaty,” Putin asserted in his statement in March. He asked the United Nations to allow Ukraine to hold elections and bring to power a “competent and trustworthy” government, with which Russia could launch negotiations and sign a peace treaty “that will be recognized worldwide and will be reliable and stable.”
There are two points here: First, Russia is steadily moving towards the achievement of its goals in Ukraine, and second Russia is, at the same time, in favor of resolving the conflict by peaceful means, but on condition that the root causes are removed. “President Putin does support the idea of the need for a ceasefire, but before that a number of questions must be answered. These questions are still hanging in the air; so far no one has given an answer to them” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in remarks.
BRICS+ Staggering at Russia-Ukrainian Peace
With Donald Trump’s proposals seriously staggering, uncertainty has been rising whether the peace brokering process would be initiated in the coming days, weeks, months or years. Africa is engulfed with diverse conflicts, with African Union (AU) and African leaders displayed of incompetencies and skills at resolving theirs. The United States and Europe possess indifferent approaches to finding common peace language. The United Nations Security Council needs reforms to cope with the changing geopolitical situation. BRICS+ association members, at bilateral and multilateral levels could not help, not even the BRICS+ in totality to propose anything acceptable for Russia, at least, to ceasefire with Ukraine. Nevertheless, the question still is how, and to what degree, BRICS+ adopted final declarations could be of significance in the peace process.
The Kazan declaration held in October 2023, for instance on Ukraine, stated “We emphasize that all states should act consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelation. We note with appreciation relevant proposals of mediation and good offices, aimed at a peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy.”
In addition and similar terms and language, the declaration adopted in 2024 under Russia’s BRICS+ presidency, of course, could not oppose and criticize Russia. That BRICS+ new declaration showed Russia’s disagreement with Ukraine still extremely difficult to revert to normalcy. Rather during discussions, Moscow reiterated its terms, which BRICS+ willingly accepted and incorporated into the final declaration. Beyond the discussions and debates, Russia justified its position against Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Ukraine, and against peace-brokers at the end of the BRICS+ Summits in 2023 and 2024.
What Next for Russia-Ukraine?
Uncertainty seems to be the catch-word. For the last three years, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has widely traveled, seeking assistance to fight Russia. The United States and Russia are feverishly in the process of normalizing relations. According to various reports, the Russian Foreign Ministry has named the new ambassador to Washington. There are also indications that Donald Trump continues pushing for improved relations as well as brokering peace in the region. At this stage, Putin isn’t interested, any longer, at negotiating peace, rather laughing at America whose economy turned messy, and global prestige nose-diving. The United States is obviously collapsing!
Undoubtedly, BRICS+ is expanding its range of partnerships and its numerical strength, China with an estimated 1.5 billion people, among others, is steadily emerging as the global economic super-power. While attempting to broker peace, its main aspiration is to attain global economic power status. Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelenskyy might eventually fall, giving Russia a larger territorial space with a declining population. Arctic and Far East regions lack development, experiencing extremely low demography in the light of climate change, the emerging new geopolitical dynamics definitely be shared between China, Europe and the United States.
[IDN-InDepthNews – 30 April 2025]
*Kester Kenn Klomegah has diverse work experience in the field of policy research and business consultancy. His focused interest includes geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development related questions in Africa with external countries.