March 31, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Russia struggles to restore its disabled tanks

US President Donald Trump stated on March 30 that there is an unspecified “psychological deadline” for Russia to agree to a general ceasefire amid continued Russian efforts to hold the temporary ceasefire in the Black Sea hostage to stall efforts toward a general ceasefire and extract additional concessions from the West. Trump responded to a question on March 30 about whether there is a deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire for land warfare and stated that “it’s a psychological deadline.”[1] Trump added that “if I think [Russia] is tapping [the United States] along, I will not be happy about it.”[2]Finnish President Alexander Stubb stated on March 30 that he proposed April 20 as a potential deadline for a “full ceasefire without any conditions” during his meeting with Trump on March 29.[3] Russia is unlikely to agree to a “full ceasefire without any conditions” within three weeks given that Russia has demanded that the West provide some sanctions relief as a precondition for a temporary Black Sea ceasefire. The Kremlin stated on March 25 that it will not implement the agreed ceasefire in the Black Sea until the United States lifts sanctions on Russian state-owned agricultural bank Rosselkhozbank and other unspecified financial organizations involved in international food and fertilizer trade, and Bloomberg reported on March 28 that Russia is demanding that the European Union (EU) reconnect the Rosselkhozbank to the SWIFT international banking system as a precondition to implementing a Black Sea ceasefire as a test to determine whether the United States will engage with Russia’s demands and encourage European partners to support sanctions relief.[4] The United States and Ukraine proposed on March 11 temporary ceasefires on energy infrastructure strikes and in the Black Sea, and Ukranian and US officials have continued to negotiate the terms of these ceasefires in the three weeks since March 11 — indicating the ceasefires’ terms are not yet fully codified.[5] It is also unlikely that the United States, Ukraine, and Russia could negotiate the terms of a general ceasefire within the next three weeks.

Russian officials continue efforts to undermine the proposed US-Ukrainian mineral deal by promoting potential US-Russian rare earth mining projects. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on March 31 that US companies are interested in joint rare earth metals mining projects with Russia and that these projects are the first step to improving bilateral relations, although the United States and Russia have not yet signed any documents concerning rare earth metals.[6] Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev told Kremlin-affiliated outlet Izvestia on March 31 that Russian and US officials have started discussions about joint rare earth mineral projects.[7] Dmitriev also told the BBC’s Russian Service on March 30 that US-Russian economic cooperation should be a primary focus if the United States wants to end the war in Ukraine but that such cooperation would only begin after the conclusion of peace negotiations.[8] The Kremlin is attempting to undermine the Trump administration’s objectives of linking US and Ukrainian economic interests through the US-Ukraine mineral deal by presenting Russia as a rare earth commodities trader superior to Ukraine. The Trump administration seeks to use the US-Ukrainian deal to establish concrete US economic interests in Ukraine as part of US efforts to transition Ukraine from solely a military aid recipient to also an economic partner.[9] The kind of economic cooperation that Russia seeks with the United States would not deter Russia from invading Ukraine again in the future and will fail to advance the Trump administration’s objectives of economically linking the US and Ukraine. Such cooperation would also accelerate Russian military reconstitution faster than it would otherwise. Russia’s access to minerals in occupied Ukraine will likely augment the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) ability to access Ukraine’s minerals. Russia has notably partnered with the PRC to extract Russian rare earth commodities since at least 2005.[10] Russian companies are also involved in current and potential deposit exploration projects in various African countries.[11] ISW continues to assess that Russia is using economic incentives that are unrelated to the war in Ukraine to extract concessions from the United States about the war in Ukraine.[12] These concessions would give away leverage that is crucial to US President Donald Trump’s stated objective of achieving an enduring and mutually beneficial peace in Ukraine.

The Kremlin continues efforts to sow division between the United States and Europe. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused “almost the entire European West” of attempting to prolong the war in Ukraine and contributing to the “rehabilitation of Nazism,” and continued to falsely portray the Ukrainian government as neo-Nazis during an interview on March 30.[13] Lavrov claimed that Europeans “unleashed” “all the tragedies of humanity before 1939, including World War II” and that elites currently in power in most European Union (EU) and NATO countries retain the “instincts” to bring about these tragedies. Director of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs International Organizations Department, Kirill Logvinov, reiterated to Kremlin newswire TASS on March 31 that Russia continues to view a European peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine as unacceptable and criticized ongoing UK and French efforts to create such a contingent.[14] Logvinov similarly blamed European countries, specifically European elites, of causing the war in Ukraine and seeking to extend the war. Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev similarly criticized European countries for alleged “Russophobia” about the war and threatened Europe with Russian missiles.[15] Medvedev routinely makes extreme statements aimed at persuading Western states to act according to Russia’s interests.[16] These statements are part of the Kremlin’s broader efforts to falsely portray European countries as seeking to prolong the war in contrast to ongoing US efforts to secure interim ceasefires and eventually a full peace in Ukraine. This rhetoric is aimed at undermining Western unity in supporting Ukraine.[17]

Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide financial and military aid to Ukraine. The Dutch Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced on March 30 that the Netherlands is allocating 500 million euros (roughly $541 million) for Ukraine’s Drone Line project that aims to integrate drone and ground operations in the Ukrainian military.[18] The Dutch MoD stated that this package is part of the Netherland’s two billion euros (roughly $2 billion) accelerated support package in 2025. Sweden announced on March 31 its largest military aid package to Ukraine to date, worth roughly 16 billion Swedish kronor (roughly $1.6 billion) to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense, artillery, satellite communications, and naval capabilities.[19] The package includes 9.2 billion Swedish kronor (roughly $920 million) for the supply of materiel from the defense industrial bases (DIBs) of Sweden, other Nordic states, and European states; over five billion Swedish kronor (roughly $500 million) in financial donations to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group; and roughly 500 million Swedish kronor (roughly $50 million) worth of materiel donated from the Swedish military.

Key Takeaways:

  • US President Donald Trump stated on March 30 that there is an unspecified “psychological deadline” for Russia to agree to a general ceasefire amid continued Russian efforts to hold the temporary ceasefire in the Black Sea hostage to stall efforts toward a general ceasefire and extract additional concessions from the West.
  • Russian officials continue efforts to undermine the proposed US-Ukrainian mineral deal by promoting potential US-Russian rare earth mining projects.
  • The Kremlin continues efforts to sow division between the United States and Europe.
  • Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide financial and military aid to Ukraine.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Toretsk. Russian forces recently advanced in Kursk and Sumy oblasts and near Kupyansk, Kurakhove and Velyka Novosilka.
  • Russia is reportedly struggling to restore what few tanks remain in its stocks.
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.