The recent proposal by the United States for a 30-day ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia marks a tentative step towards peace negotiations, which are likely to be fraught with diplomatic pitfalls and opportunities for all parties involved. Ending a conflict in which no nation has emerged as a clear victor requires all sides to navigate the murky waters of compromise, often swallowing their earlier bellicose rhetoric and solemn commitments made during the course of the war.
To grasp the complexity of achieving peace, one need only reflect on the intricate dynamics that had to be reconciled to conclude the conflict in Northern Ireland with the Good Friday Agreement in 1997. The divisions in Northern Ireland may seem straightforward compared to the multifaceted and bloody war in Ukraine, where the stakes are significantly higher and the players more deeply entrenched in their positions.
An enduring resolution must consider the long-term interests of Russia, Ukraine, and their respective allies—interests that may not necessarily align. Moreover, effective peace negotiations must accurately represent the enduring balance of political and military power between the warring factions—an understanding that can be challenging for those entrenched in the conflict to recognize and act upon.
As with other unresolved conflicts, initiatives aimed at peace in Ukraine will be hampered by short-term events, often of a violent nature. This phenomenon, colloquially referred to in Northern Ireland as “the politics of the last atrocity,” suggests that any progress can be easily derailed by sudden escalations in violence.
The immediate offer of a ceasefire to Russia presents a significant dilemma for President Vladimir Putin. His primary bargaining chip lies in the ongoing attritional warfare along the extensive 600-mile front line in Ukraine, where the Russian military has been gradually gaining an advantage. Senior Ukrainian military officials have voiced concerns that their defensive positions may soon crumble under pressure. With a population five times larger than that of Ukraine, Russia has both the capacity and the incentive to engage in simultaneous fighting and negotiations.
According to a senior source in Moscow, “It is difficult for Putin to agree to this [ceasefire] in its present form. He holds a strong position because Russia is making advances.” The source further articulated that without clearly defined guarantees—yet to be provided—the ceasefire could potentially weaken Moscow’s standing in the conflict.
As of now, Putin has not publicly responded to the ceasefire proposal. Russian officials are reportedly awaiting clarification from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz regarding the details. However, it is expected that Putin will condition his acceptance on the fulfillment of at least some of his stated objectives concerning the future status of Ukraine. In a statement made last December, he emphasized, “We don’t need a truce; we need a long-term peace secured by guarantees.”
The Ripple Effects of U.S. Leadership on the Conflict
This assertion may seem definitive, yet in the three months following Putin’s remarks, President Donald Trump has significantly altered the U.S. stance on its alliance with Ukraine—although the provision of arms and intelligence support is set to resume. Trump’s warm rhetoric toward Putin and his advocacy for a peace agreement with Russia have raised eyebrows in Moscow, which has historically been skeptical of Trump’s promise to end the war in Ukraine during the presidential campaign.
Furthermore, the public spat between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House on February 28 has seemingly delighted Russian leaders, who have taken note of the growing rift. Regardless, Putin has a strong incentive to avoid alienating Trump by outright rejecting a U.S.-backed ceasefire or imposing excessive conditions on it.
Whether by instinct or design, Trump has a knack for keeping both allies and adversaries in suspense regarding U.S. diplomatic intentions. This unpredictability grants him substantial leverage over both Putin and Zelensky, compelling them to compete for his favor. With the proposed ceasefire in place, Zelensky finds himself once again in the good graces of the Oval Office, although some analysts speculate that the White House may seek to replace him if he stands in the way of their strategic objectives.
The situation was arguably more straightforward for Russian, Ukrainian, and European leaders during President Joe Biden’s administration, which tended to eschew diplomatic engagement in favor of a more rigid approach that leaned toward the unlikely outcomes of a Ukrainian victory and Russian capitulation. This steadfastness also benefited Putin, who could claim that Russia was fighting for its very survival following the embarrassingly failed invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Much analysis surrounding the proposed ceasefire has focused excessively on recent minor Russian territorial gains in Kursk or the Ukrainian drone strikes on Moscow. However, the more significant issue is the profound intractability of the crises intertwined within this three-year conflict, which has so far claimed or injured a staggering one million lives among Russians and Ukrainians alike.
