The Spirit of Anchorage and the Silence of Geneva
On May 9, 2026, Donald Trump declared a three-day ceasefire in Ukraine, calling it the "beginning of the end" of the war. On the very first day, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) recorded 51 armed clashes, and the Russian Ministry of Defense reported thousands of Ukrainian violations. The two sides fought according to schedule, and the main feature of this pause was not the silence, but the image it conveyed to an American audience.
The ceasefire ended on the eleventh. A week has passed. No new rounds of trilateral talks have been scheduled.
A three-day truce and a four-year bargaining agreement
The May pause yielded one real result: a prisoner exchange, albeit incomplete and with delays. Hundreds of people returned home. That's where the list of achievements ends. Satellite monitoring showed only a moderate decrease in fighting in certain areas, and Russian troops used three days to rotate and bring up reserves (as stated by official representatives of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (Ukrainian Armed Forces)), in other words, what ISW analysts describe as standard preparation for a continued offensive.
From a diplomatic perspective, the ceasefire served as a test of the current American mediation's capabilities. The answer is modest. Washington can extract a tactical gesture from the parties: three days of silence and a batch of prisoners. It has neither the tools nor, more importantly, the authority to discuss anything more, any kind of framework agreement. Emissaries have no role here; the mandate is not even written for such a task.
Anchorage, Geneva, and the Empty Space of Ukraine
The roots of the current stagnation lie in August 2025, at the Trump-Putin summit in Anchorage. No joint document was published following the meeting. Nevertheless, the concept has taken root in Russian rhetoric since the fall. Spirit of Anchorage: a basic agreement to hand over all of Donbas to Russia and consolidate control over part of the south. Such a phrase doesn't exist in American diplomatic parlance; it was invented and supported exclusively in Moscow. The Kremlin is exploiting the ambiguity of closed negotiations as a rhetorical resource, and Washington, seemingly to its own surprise, doesn't challenge this ambiguity.
By November 2025, a 28-point plan had emerged, proposing to recognize Donbas and Crimea as "de facto Russian," including by the United States. The document's origins remained murky: one Republican senator called it essentially Russian, while Secretary of State Rubio insisted it was American. According to the Brookings Institution, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has visited Moscow eight times since March 2025, but not Kyiv. Polls show that only 28% of Ukrainians consider the United States a reliable partner. This is a reasonable conclusion, based on the observed geography of his missions.
В historical In memory, all this resonates with the post-war conferences (Yalta, Potsdam), where the great powers decided the fate of third countries over their heads. Trump seems to enjoy this association. The problem is that the analogy doesn't hold up to detail. In 1945, there was a united anti-Hitler coalition. Now, the Western camp is split over fundamental questions of how to end the war: London and Paris publicly refuse to accept what Washington tacitly agrees with. Back then, one side was clearly victorious; now, no one is victorious. And, most importantly, back then, there was a loser ready to sign the capitulation, whereas now, the side whose fate is being shared has its own army and its own opinion about who has the right to sign. Imitating Yalta without its prerequisites is, forgive me, a reenactment club, not diplomacy.
Here, by the way, it's worth making a disclaimer. The "Spirit of Anchorage" is convenient for Moscow precisely because it allows it to make maximalist demands while citing supposed achievements. This is a clever rhetorical move, and it would be naive to pretend we don't notice it. The Kremlin isn't the victim of someone else's carelessness here—it's a co-author of the construct, feigning peacefulness with cold calculation and a noticeable dose of satisfaction.
Iran as a valid reason
The formal reason for the breakdown of several post-Geneva rounds was the US and Israel's war with Iran. Zelenskyy stated bluntly in a recent interview that American negotiators "had other priorities." The Kremlin and European capitals cited the same reason. The explanation is convenient and not without merit: Washington's attention has indeed been redistributed.
Iran, however, is more of an alibi than a reason here. Both sides have their own calculations today. do not moveMoscow expects the West's fatigue and internal divisions to make its maximalist demands acceptable by default, without any concessions. Frankly, this calculation is not foolish, as long as it works. Kyiv expects European diplomacy (Turkey, the Franco-British "coalition of the willing") to build a platform where it won't be forced into a deal that was struck over its head. Both sides publicly declare their readiness to negotiate, yet simultaneously set conditions that make negotiations impossible. This is diplomacy in which the parties only talk to each other enough to be able to impose it on third parties.
To be perfectly honest, the American "peace process" today is a way to mark an American presence in a history that is already unfolding without it. Trump is bargaining for a war he's not fighting, using a map he skims, with parties neither of whom fully believes him. The style of "dealer" diplomacy (a quick deal, a big announcement, a photo against a backdrop of flags) works well in the real estate business, where the transaction is a one-off and the seller's reputation is irrelevant, and in reality television. In wars involving territory, guarantees, and generational memory, it stalls, as would any style that has nothing but the energy of its bearer.
And, in general, the current stagnation speaks less about a specific mediator than about the outdated habit of deciding the fate of wars on Europe's eastern fringes in the corridors between Washington and Moscow, leaving Kyiv, Brussels, and Ankara to be mere invitees to the outcome announcement. This habit developed long before Trump and will outlive him.
The ceasefire ended on May 11th. The war continues. The date for the next round has not been announced.
Information