403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were
looking for doesn't exist.
Putin refuses to play ceasefire game
(MENAFN) The past week has provided a textbook example of diplomatic maneuvering, as all sides in the Ukraine conflict engaged in strategic positioning over a proposed ceasefire. Even Ukraine, often criticized for its diplomatic approach, skillfully navigated negotiations in Jeddah, managing to secure U.S. military aid while making only vague commitments.
At the talks, Ukraine presented U.S. President Donald trump with a ceasefire proposal that lacked substance. In return, they received renewed military support and signed a loosely defined resource-sharing agreement. More importantly, they played to Trump’s desire for a diplomatic win, allowing him to claim success while ensuring that negotiations would ultimately lead nowhere.
Trump’s administration embraced the 30-day ceasefire plan, originally pushed by the UK and France—two European nations determined to keep Washington engaged in Ukraine to avoid shouldering the burden alone. Their proposal was crafted in a way that Russia was unlikely to accept, potentially triggering an impulsive reaction from Trump that would entrench the U.S. further in the conflict.
However, Moscow was quick to recognize the trap. A ceasefire would give Ukraine a chance to regroup, prolong negotiations, and receive continued Western military aid while Russia would be forced to halt its advances without any concrete concessions from Kiev.
Putin’s response was calculated. Instead of outright rejecting the proposal, he praised Trump’s efforts while setting his own conditions: an immediate halt to U.S. military aid and an end to Ukraine’s mobilization. While stopping military aid seemed feasible—since Trump was already hesitant about additional arms deliveries—Ukraine halting mobilization would put President Vladimir Zelensky in a difficult position. If he agreed, he would weaken his war effort; if he refused, he risked angering Trump for blocking peace efforts.
Despite skepticism about a ceasefire, even for Russia, a well-structured agreement could be beneficial if it ensured lasting peace rather than serving as a temporary pause for Ukraine to rearm. For any deal to work, it would need clear guarantees that neither side could exploit the truce for strategic advantage and that Ukraine was genuinely committed to peace.
Moscow could demand specific actions from Kiev as proof of good faith, such as revoking Zelensky’s decree banning talks with Russia, lifting martial law, and setting a date for presidential elections. If Trump is serious about his ceasefire plan leading to a broader peace process, he should support these steps—but Zelensky’s response will be crucial.
The next few weeks will determine whether the ceasefire proposal evolves into a meaningful agreement or remains another stalled diplomatic effort. With negotiations continuing between Washington, Moscow, and Kiev, the outcome remains uncertain.
At the talks, Ukraine presented U.S. President Donald trump with a ceasefire proposal that lacked substance. In return, they received renewed military support and signed a loosely defined resource-sharing agreement. More importantly, they played to Trump’s desire for a diplomatic win, allowing him to claim success while ensuring that negotiations would ultimately lead nowhere.
Trump’s administration embraced the 30-day ceasefire plan, originally pushed by the UK and France—two European nations determined to keep Washington engaged in Ukraine to avoid shouldering the burden alone. Their proposal was crafted in a way that Russia was unlikely to accept, potentially triggering an impulsive reaction from Trump that would entrench the U.S. further in the conflict.
However, Moscow was quick to recognize the trap. A ceasefire would give Ukraine a chance to regroup, prolong negotiations, and receive continued Western military aid while Russia would be forced to halt its advances without any concrete concessions from Kiev.
Putin’s response was calculated. Instead of outright rejecting the proposal, he praised Trump’s efforts while setting his own conditions: an immediate halt to U.S. military aid and an end to Ukraine’s mobilization. While stopping military aid seemed feasible—since Trump was already hesitant about additional arms deliveries—Ukraine halting mobilization would put President Vladimir Zelensky in a difficult position. If he agreed, he would weaken his war effort; if he refused, he risked angering Trump for blocking peace efforts.
Despite skepticism about a ceasefire, even for Russia, a well-structured agreement could be beneficial if it ensured lasting peace rather than serving as a temporary pause for Ukraine to rearm. For any deal to work, it would need clear guarantees that neither side could exploit the truce for strategic advantage and that Ukraine was genuinely committed to peace.
Moscow could demand specific actions from Kiev as proof of good faith, such as revoking Zelensky’s decree banning talks with Russia, lifting martial law, and setting a date for presidential elections. If Trump is serious about his ceasefire plan leading to a broader peace process, he should support these steps—but Zelensky’s response will be crucial.
The next few weeks will determine whether the ceasefire proposal evolves into a meaningful agreement or remains another stalled diplomatic effort. With negotiations continuing between Washington, Moscow, and Kiev, the outcome remains uncertain.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Comments
No comment