Most voters want Ukraine to reach a settlement with Russia as the war between the two countries reaches its three-year anniversary, including a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents, according to a new poll.
But the parties split on what the process to negotiate an end to the hostilities should look like, as Trump administration officials start to meet with Russian officials to discuss bringing the war to a conclusion, and separately negotiate a natural resources deal with Ukraine.
The Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll found that 72 percent of registered voters said want Ukraine to focus on negotiating a settlement over continuing the war, including 80 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of independents and 61 percent of Democrats.
Trump’s announcement of direct negotiations between the U.S. and Russia to end the war is overwhelmingly popular among Republicans with 85 percent in favor. A slight majority of independents favor that approach, while 60 percent of Democrats are opposed.
Almost six in 10 across parties said they oppose the Trump administration leaving Ukrainian leaders out of the negotiations, including 76 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents. But 62 percent of Republicans said they support leaving Ukraine out of the talks.
Democrats and independents are also both cool to leaving European leaders out of the discussions, while 69 percent of Republicans support it.
MSNBC cancels Joy Reid show as part of overhaul under new administration, Lester Holt to step down as anchor of ‘NBC Nightly News’
Three-quarters of Democrats and almost two-thirds of independents oppose Trump forcing Ukraine to make territorial concessions to end the war, while two thirds of Republicans support it.
Roughly two-thirds of Republicans, Democrats and independents say Ukraine should receive security guarantees from the U.S. if it makes concessions with Russia.
Mark Penn, chair of the Harris Poll, told The Hill that Americans “despise” Russian President Vladimir Putin but are “weary of the cost and longevity” of the war. He said most support efforts to try to end the war, even as they don’t trust Putin to abide by the terms.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who Trump has called a “dictator” who is doing a “terrible job,” said on Sunday that he would consider resigning from office as part of a peace agreement that had Ukraine joining NATO.
Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser, reiterated on Monday that Ukraine joining NATO is “not back on the table” in talks to end the war.
The Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey was conducted from Feb. 19 to 20 and surveyed 2,443 registered voters. It is a collaboration of the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and the Harris Poll.
The survey is an online sample drawn from the Harris Panel and weighted to reflect known demographics. The margin of error is 2 percentage points.
On the eve of a phone call with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin unveiled his latest overture to the United States. For the first time in three years of war, he signed an order on Monday allowing major US investment funds to sell their holdings of frozen Russian securities. The move comes as US media report the White House is looking at what carrots it can offer Moscow, with the potential recognition of Crimea as Russian territory on the table.
Vladimir Putin has signed an order allowing ten investment funds from the US and UK to sell their assets in Russia. From the list of firms, it is clear the assets in question are Russian securities, in which non-resident investors held large stakes before the war. On 1 February 2022, non-residents owned around 20% of Russian government bonds (OFZs). Among those given the green light to sell are some of the largest Western funds that have invested in Russia, including Franklin Templeton, GMO, Jane Street and Baillie Gifford.
Putin’s decision is a milestone: no Western investment fund has yet been able to pull out or sell securities stuck in Russia. They have not been nationalised, but the assets have been transferred to frozen so-called type-C escrow accounts, from which money cannot be withdrawn without permission from the Russian authorities. In total, these accounts had assets worth 500 billion rubles ($6.4 billion) in them as of March 2023, Bloomberg reported, citing Central Bank data.
The buyer, listed in Putin’s order, is little-known New York-based hedge fund 683 Capital Partners. But they won’t hold onto them for long. Putin has also authorised two Russian legal entities, LLC Cepheus-2 and LLC Sovremennye Fonds Nedvizhimosti, former structures of Sber, which are most likely still connected with the state bank, to buy the assets from 683 Capital Partners.
Who is 683 Capital Partners and why are they involved as a middle-man in the deal? According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, at the end of 2024, 683 Capital Partners managed assets worth $1.6bn (a tiny amount in the hedge fund world), and had just 10 employees. The firm seems to have nothing to do with Russia. But The Bell immediately noticed that the founder and head of the fund, Ari Zweiman, studied at both Stanford and Harvard in exactly the same years as the head of RDIF, Kirill Dmitriev, who is now one of the negotiators with the Americans, focused on economy issues. In response to a question about his possible association with Zweiman, Dmitriev said: “I am not familiar, neither I nor RDIF has ever had any contacts with this fund.”
The authorisation of these deals comes a day before a phone call between Putin and Trump, during which the two sides will discuss (1, 2) terms for ending the war in Ukraine. Trump himself said on Monday night that the conversation would take place in the morning (i.e. evening Moscow time). Semafor claimed that the White House is going through a variety of options on what to promise Vladimir Putin for agreeing to a ceasefire in Ukraine – including allegedly exploring the possibility of recognising Crimea as Russian.
Why the world should care
The scheme for selling the Russian assets of American investment funds described in Vladimir Putin’s order looks suspicious. Western funds for some reason sell their assets to an intermediary who will then resell the securities to a Russian entity. There can only be two good explanations for such a scheme: protecting the Western sellers from the threat of sanctions, and kickbacks for the intermediary players (quite possibly both).
The EU would do well to indefinitely suspend Ukrainians’ visa-free access to the bloc after martial law ends.
Outgoing Polish President Andrzej Duda told the Financial Times that a crime wave could sweep across Europe after the Ukrainian Conflict ends if that country’s PTSD-afflicted troops spill into the bloc and engage in organized crime like their Soviet predecessors from the 1980s Afghan War did after 1991. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry swiftly reacted by denying that they could pose any such threat, pointing to how they didn’t between 2014-2022, and claiming that they’re actually a security asset for Europe. [https://www.ft.com/content/6d3b06f8-f5d4-4870-9b33-43bf4a651849]
Their three points are superficial though since traumatized troops anywhere in the world are much more prone to deviant behavior, the latest phase of the conflict has objectively been much more traumatizing than the prior one, and this therefore makes its veterans a security liability for Europe at the very least. Compounding the aforementioned risks is the fact that the US failed to track billions of dollars’ worth of weapons sent to Ukraine according to Reuters so some of these likely ended up on the black market.
The threat that Duda just drew attention to is thus a very credible and urgent one that should be taken seriously by all European stakeholders. This doesn’t mean that they need to foot part of the bill for Ukraine’s security and development like he strongly implied in his interview, but just that they should at the minimum indefinitely suspend its citizens’ visa-free access to the bloc otherwise traumatized veterans armed with illegally obtained US weapons might turn his warning into a prophecy.
The floodgates will open if the US succeeds in brokering a ceasefire like it’s arguably aiming to do for the purpose of prompting Ukraine into lifting marital law and therefore legally setting the stage for the next elections. Military-age Ukrainian males will then be able to freely leave to the EU unless the bloc indefinitely suspends their visa-free access. The arguments in favor of these restrictions far outweigh those against them from the perspective of European and Ukrainian national interests.
Europe already received several million low-wage laborers so it doesn’t need to risk the credible security consequences of accepting traumatized Ukrainian veterans just to obtain some more, while Ukraine needs as many of its refugees to return as possible after the conflict ends in order to rebuild. It goes without saying that Ukraine also can’t afford another large-scale exodus and thus has an interest in requesting that the EU indefinitely suspends their visa-free access to the bloc if it won’t do so on its own.
Keeping the border open to them would be a recipe for mutual disaster. There’s also the possibility that Poland takes the lead in unilaterally refusing to admit military-aged Ukrainian males after their country’s martial law is lifted just like it unilaterally decided to suspend asylum rights for some migrants last year. That could trigger a legal crisis within the bloc, especially if others like Hungary and Slovakia follow suit, which would be a worst-case political scenario at the time when the EU would need unity on Ukraine.
Poland’s ruling liberal-globalists, who are closely aligned with EU-leader Germany, might not have the political will to do that though but Hungary might and it could justify this based on Duda’s warning. Even if no member state makes such a dramatic move, some of their citizens might angrily agitate for this if their compatriots fall victim to PTSD-afflicted Ukrainian veteran criminal gangs. The issue deserves to be closely monitored since it’s a credible security risk that could have outsized consequences for the bloc.
In the past month, Russian forces made a net gain of 110 square miles in Ukraine (about 1 Nantucket island), according to the March 12, 2025, issue of the Russia-Ukraine War Report Card. In addition, the Russian army appeared on March 14 to be close to driving Ukraine from all the territory it had seized in Russia’s Kursk region, according to NYT’s March 14 report. The elimination of this salient, which Vladimir Putin discussed during his surprise visit to the Kursk region on March 12, would deprive Volodymyr Zelenskyy of a major bargaining chip in direct negotiations with Moscow if and when they would occur. Based data from ISW, RM’s War Report Card of March 12, 2025 estimates that Ukraine controlled only 79 square miles of the 470 square miles it captured at the height of its Kursk incursion in Sept. 2024: an 83% drop.
During their March 11 meeting in Saudi Arabia, high-level U.S. and Ukrainian delegations endorsed the West’s proposal for an immediate 30-day ceasefire in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict contingent on Russia’s consent to observe it. However, even before Steve Witkoff, a member of the U.S. delegation, could take the proposal for the unconditional ceasefire to Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s chief foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov spoke against it. “This is nothing other than a temporary time-out for Ukrainian soldiers, nothing more. Our goal is a long-term peaceful resolution,” Ushakov said March 13. Speaking later that same day, Putin gave a qualified approval of the proposal, conditioning its adoption on a number of Russian demands. “We start from the position that this cessation should lead to a long-term peace and eliminate the causes of this crisis,” Putin said. “Then there arise questions over monitoring and verification,” said Putin prior to meeting Witkoff, whom he reportedly kept waiting for eight hours. In the absence of Russia’s unequivocal support for the ceasefire proposal, both Putin and Trump took pains to avoid admitting a setback. Trump described Witkoff’s meeting with Putin as productive. “There is a very good chance that this horrible, bloody war can finally come to an end,” Trump claimed. A decision on a phone call or a meeting between Trump and Putin will be made once Witkoff has relayed to Trump the information from the talks, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Witkoff flew from Moscow to Baku upon completing his visit to the Russian capital, with Trump reportedly expecting his aide back in the U.S. so that Trump can “learn more” about the outcome of the talks with Putin on March 17.
In addition to Witkoff’s visit to the Russian capital, several more government-to-government contacts have been reported between America and Russia this week as Moscow and Washington continue to explore normalizing the bilateral relationship.The head ofRussia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergei Naryshkin, and U.S. CIA Director John Ratcliffe agreed to maintain regular contacts during a phone call March 11 to discuss cooperation between their agencies, according to Bloomberg. Meanwhile, Russian and European officials say the U.S. is exploring ways to work with Russia’s energy giant Gazprom on global projects, according to Bloomberg. It has also been earlier reported that U.S. and Russian officials are already discussing issues ranging from the resumption of direct flights and the return of Russian diplomats’ missions in the U.S., to Russian-Ukrainian peace and Russian assistance to the U.S. in communicating with Iran over its nuclear program. Moreover, the Kremlin is exploring its options for a potential meeting between Putin and Trump in April or May in the Middle East, Russian officials told MT.
Appropriately (and surreally), it all started yesterday with a Trump tweet on Truth Social, requesting that President Putin spare the lives of Ukrainian troops surrounded in the doomed Kursk salient:
Later in the day, President Putin addressed his Security Council saying he’d read Trump’s appeal. “In this regard, I would like to emphasize that if [Ukrainian troops] lay down their arms and surrender, they will be guaranteed life and decent treatment under international law and the laws of the Russian Federation,” Putin informed his team in a part of the meeting that was publicly broadcast.
Tellingly, President Putin stressed the new policy was in response to Trump’s ask: “To effectively implement the appeal of the US president, a corresponding order from the military-political leadership of Ukraine is needed for its military units to lay down their arms and surrender.”
Bizarrely, Ukraine defiantly insisted its Kursk troops are not surrounded, so there is no reason to surrender. Media reported those crazy claims without criticism, but also without enthusiasm. Nobody seems to believe Zelensky.
As usual, witless corporate media completely missed the mark, clueless to the fact that Putin’s concession shows progress in the delicate peace negotiations. Most media framed the story as Putin’s “demand for Ukraine to surrender.” For example, here’s the Seattle Times’ take:
Media couldn’t see an elephant if it were sitting in the passenger seat. Here’s the actual timeline: yesterday, Putin graciously reviewed the US’s proposed cease-fire, and responded with a bunch of correct but complicating questions, including what happens to the surrounded Ukrainian troops in Kursk? Can they just walk away?
Trump indirectly responded to that question with his tweet. It coyly avoided actually asking for anything, but rather suggested Russia should spare their lives. And Putin, citing Trump’s request, agreed. He promised that if the Ukrainians lay down arms and surrender, he will guarantee their safety. It is a huge improvement —right now, they face imminent death— and more importantly, it resolved one of Putin’s most important questions about the proposed cease-fire’s terms.
🚀 President Trump masterfully deployed a well-known negotiating technique called incremental agreement. Rather than trying to get your adversary to agree to a large, complicated deal, you start by peeling off the easiest issues one-by-one. After your negotiating partner starts saying ‘yes,’ or ‘da,’ each subsequent incremental agreement becomes that much easier, and before you know it, Bob’s your uncle and you have a final deal.
It was a win for both parties. Putin handed Trump a highly visible incremental agreement that went to the heart of Trump’s stated goal: to stop the killing. For his part, Putin garnered points for being reasonable and for visibly working toward a deal—which blows the media’s stonewalling narrative to bits. And the Russian president skillfully jammed the Ukrainians into a painful crack: if they refuse to agree and lay down arms, he’ll then be fully justified in wiping them out.
And then the Americans can blame Kiev, for Zelensky’s stubborn intransigence.
That explains why the Ukrainians are pretending their troops are not surrounded. That unbelievable claim is the only remaining safe spot to hide in. Of course, everyone realizes they should order the troops to put down their weapons, rather than letting the Russians turn them into battlefield chum. But the Kiev regime has long showed a strategic choice of never surrendering. It’s the last thing they want to do.
And very soon now, somebody is going to ask Zelensky the obvious question, why not just order any surrounded troops to surrender? If no troops are surrounded, then asking them to surrender wouldn’t matter, would it?
See what just happened? Trump meaningfully convinced Putin to change Russian military policy—on Twitter. (I know, Truth Social.) Meanwhile, Ukraine’s government is reduced to incredulously denying the battlefield even exists. The game of peace-deal hide-and-go-seek is moving fast, and Zelensky is running out of hiding places. They’ve already chucked the dimunitive former comedian out of the negotiating room. Very soon, the inevitable and only question will be: does Ukraine want peace or not?
