April 16, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: U.S. tells Russia no economic deal without cease-fire in Ukraine

Institute for the Study of War

The White House reiterated that the United States will not engage in economic agreements with Russia until Russia agrees to a ceasefire, amid continued Russian efforts to deflect blame onto Ukraine for the Kremlin’s rejection of such a ceasefire. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Trump made it “very clear” that US-Russian economic partnerships could be an incentive for Russia to end its war against Ukraine, but that the United States “needs to see a ceasefire first” — likely in reference to a temporary or permanent full ceasefire in Ukraine.[1] The Trump administration has previously characterized a temporary full ceasefire as a “necessary step” toward achieving an enduring peace settlement in Ukraine.[2] Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected the joint US-Ukrainian 30-day full ceasefire proposal when Trump called Putin on March 18, and senior Russian officials have reiterated Putin’s rejection since then by attempting to deflect blame onto Ukraine and secure additional bilateral concessions from the United States.[3] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on April 16 that Ukraine’s decision to extend martial law and continue general mobilization until August 6, 2025 is an attempt to preserve Ukraine’s “unstable structure” and implied that Ukraine’s ban on negotiations with Russia is inhibiting progress towards ending the war.[4] The Ukrainian government is legally prohibited from lifting martial law while Russia continues to attack Ukraine, however. Russian authorities also appear to be intensifying their recruitment efforts, suggesting that the Kremlin intends to sustain its current force generation efforts for some time, peace talks notwithstanding.[5] The Kremlin is continuing efforts to blame Ukraine for the lack of progress towards Trump’s desired full ceasefire. Ukraine has already agreed to Trump’s temporary full ceasefire proposal, while Kremlin officials have consistently reiterated that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s non-negotiable demands for regime change in Ukraine, extensive territorial concessions, and limitations on Ukraine’s military that would render Ukraine defenseless as conditions must be met before Russia can agree to a future ceasefire.[6]

Russia is reportedly heavily dependent on North Korean artillery ammunition as North Korea continues to learn lessons from Russia’s war against Ukraine. Reuters published a joint investigation with UK-based research organization Open Source Center (OSC) on April 15 detailing the extent of Russia’s dependence on North Korean artillery and the evolution of North Korean forces’ participation in fighting alongside Russian forces.[7] Reuters and the OSC tracked 64 shipments from North Korea to Russia from September 2023 to March 2025 that involved 16,000 containers carrying millions of North Korean artillery rounds and recorded a shipment from North Korea as recently as March 17, 2025. Reuters and the OSC reported that four Russian-flagged ships — the Angara, Maria, Maia-1, and Lady R cargo ships — transported the ammunition from North Korea’s port of Rajin to the Russian ports of Vostochny and Dunai. Reuters reviewed Russian military documents of everyday Russian artillery usage that showed that some Russian units depended on North Korean artillery shells for half or more of their shells used in daily fire missions. Reuters reported that an unspecified Russian unit fighting in Zaporizhia Oblast reported that nearly 50 percent of its 152mm D-20 howitzer rounds and 100 percent of its 122mm rockets fired came from North Korea. Ukraine’s Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) told Reuters that North Korea has provided Russia with three million artillery rounds and an unspecified number of mortar rounds since mid-2023 and that half of all of Russia’s artillery rounds come from North Korea. The GUR also stated that North Korea supplied Russia with 148 KN-23 and KN-24 ballistic missiles as of January 2025.

Ukrainian military commanders and intelligence continue to indicate that North Korean forces have innovated their training and battlefield tactics following their participation in Russia’s war. A Ukrainian regimental commander fighting in Kursk Oblast told Reuters that 3,000 additional North Korean forces that arrived in Kursk Oblast in mid-February 2025 were better prepared and more “adapted to modern combat” than the original contingent of North Korean forces that began fighting alongside Russian forces in November 2024.[8] GUR Spokesperson Andriy Chernyak stated on April 15 that North Korean forces have changed tactics from conducting assaults in large groups to attacking in groups of one or two people, have learned drone and electronic warfare (EW) tactics, and are successfully using Russian weapons and tactics on the battlefield.[9] Chernyak indicated that Russian and North Korean forces are somewhat compensating for language barriers that were causing friction during combat operations, as North Korean forces now receive orders and conduct assaults without communicating with Russian units.

Key Takeaways:

  • The White House reiterated that the United States will not engage in economic agreements with Russia until Russia agrees to a ceasefire, amid continued Russian efforts to deflect blame onto Ukraine for the Kremlin’s rejection of such a ceasefire.
  • Russia is reportedly heavily dependent on North Korean artillery ammunition as North Korea continues to learn lessons from Russia’s war against Ukraine.
  • Russian authorities recently detained former Kursk Oblast Governor Alexei Smirnov, likely as part of the Kremlin efforts to scapegoat Kursk Oblast officials for their failure in responding to Ukraine’s August 2024 incursion into Kursk Oblast.
  • Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces recently executed at least one unarmed Ukrainian prisoner of war (POW) near Rozdolne (northeast of Velyka Novosilka).
  • Russian forces recently advanced near Toretsk, Pokrovsk, and Velyka Novosilka.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.