A new phase of consultations between Ukraine and the United States begins today, with discussions centred on the introduction of a limited ceasefire regime.
The talks aim specifically at halting hostilities targeting energy infrastructure, and potentially broader infrastructure sectors. However, terminological ambiguity—particularly between “energy infrastructure” and “social infrastructure”—has led to differing interpretations in both Ukrainian and international media.
The meetings are expected to clarify definitions and address the technical aspects of enforcing a ceasefire on selected categories of infrastructure. The parties are also set to explore the potential for extending ceasefire arrangements to parts of the Black Sea maritime zone.
Simultaneously, Ukrainian officials have raised concerns over the conceptual framework used by some international partners, especially terms increasingly promoted by the Russian Federation in diplomatic and multilateral contexts. According to Ukrainian analysts and officials, three key phrases—“elimination of root causes,” “legitimate security interests,” and the “indivisibility of international security”—are being employed by Russia in a manner that challenges established principles of international law and post-Cold War security arrangements.
The notion of “eliminating root causes” was recently criticised by Andriy Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign minister, who argued that the root cause of the current war is the Russian Federation’s aggression and expansionist policy. Ukrainian officials warn that Russia’s invocation of this concept often implies that the presence of NATO forces in Central and Eastern Europe constitutes a provocation, and that reversing NATO enlargement to 1991 boundaries would be a necessary condition for peace.
The root causes of this war are Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist and his wish to destroy our nation—a genocidal goal backed by Russians. This is why Russia started this war, commits atrocities, and tries to change borders by force. So yes, let’s remove the root causes.
— Andrii Sybiha 🇺🇦 (@andrii_sybiha) February 22, 2025
According to Ukrainian interpretations, such proposals amount to a demand that NATO and the United States withdraw from countries that joined the alliance following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This would include a rollback of NATO forces to pre-1991 positions, effectively removing alliance presence from most of Central and Eastern Europe.
This approach is viewed in Kyiv as an attempt by Russia to regain political and military influence over countries formerly within the Soviet sphere of influence, using security language to advance strategic territorial objectives. Ukrainian experts have drawn historical parallels to the post-World War II Yalta agreements, which divided Europe into spheres of influence.
Another contested term is the “legitimate security interests” of the Russian Federation. In recent statements, including remarks made in the Russian State Duma by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Moscow has insisted that any diplomatic resolution must take into account Russia’s perceived security needs, as shaped by what it calls the “realities on the ground.” Ukrainian officials interpret this as a reference to territories currently occupied by Russian forces, which Moscow claims as part of its national interest despite widespread international recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty over those areas.
Ukraine asserts that such a reading constitutes a violation of international law, including the UN Charter and principles of territorial integrity. Ukrainian diplomats note that “realities on the ground” are often a euphemism for changes imposed through military force, and should not be legitimised in international documents.
The third term under scrutiny is the “principle of the indivisibility of international security.” While originally intended to support the notion that the security of one state cannot be ensured at the expense of another, Russia’s use of this principle appears aimed at blocking Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. Russian interpretation allows for unilateral actions on the grounds of perceived threats, while denying neighbouring countries the right to choose their own security alliances.
Ukraine maintains that NATO, as a defensive alliance, poses no threat to Russia. Furthermore, several NATO member states—such as the Baltic countries, Finland, and now Sweden—share borders with Russia. Kyiv contends that Moscow singles out Ukraine because of its strategic importance and Russia’s broader objective to reassert influence over post-Soviet space.
According to Ukrainian experts, these three concepts are being introduced into international dialogue and documentation as part of a longer-term effort to shape post-war settlements in Russia’s favour. Ukrainian sources express concern that recent language used in some United Nations Security Council documents reflects Russian framing, particularly calls to address the “root causes” of the war, which risk providing a basis for Russian demands in future negotiations.
This trend is seen by Ukrainian commentators as potentially dangerous. They argue that incorporating such language into multilateral decisions could be used by Russia to claim tacit international agreement with its strategic goals, including the withdrawal of NATO from Central Europe and the formalisation of territorial gains made through the use of force.
The Ukrainian position remains that any diplomatic solution must be grounded in international law, including respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. Kyiv continues to press for a clearer understanding among allies of how Russia employs ambiguous diplomatic language to advance its strategic narrative. Ukrainian officials stress that failure to challenge these concepts directly could lead to long-term erosion of the rules-based international order.
Read also:
Valerii Zaluzhnyi Warns: “Europe Must Recognise Ukraine’s Role in Its Own Security”
