How Russia’s President avoided a carefully laid trap
The past week is sure to be remembered in diplomatic textbooks – perhaps in a chapter titled ‘How to Sabotage an Unwanted Ceasefire’. Every player in the conflict put on a masterclass in maneuvering, even Ukraine, whose diplomatic skills I usually doubt. But in Jeddah, desperate to escape US President Donald Trump’s iron grip on peace at all costs, they pulled a classic bait-and-switch.
The Ukrainians handed Trump a piece of paper with a meaningless ceasefire proposal. In return, they secured renewed US military aid without any real obligations – except signing a vague resource-sharing agreement. More importantly, they played to Trump’s ego, allowing him to trumpet a grand victory to the world while leading him down a dead-end path that will ultimately stall negotiations.
How did the Americans fall for this trick? Perhaps it was the eight hours of stalling by the Ukrainian delegation. Perhaps they exploited Trump’s well-known preference for flattery over details. Or maybe, as history often reveals, there were other behind-the-scenes factors that will emerge later in memoirs.
Regardless, the result is clear: The Trump administration embraced a 30-day ceasefire plan – one originally concocted by Britain and France, the loudest voices of the Western ‘war party’. These European powers, deeply skeptical of Trump, had one goal – to prevent Washington from backing out of the conflict and leaving them with the burden of propping up Kiev. Their proposed ceasefire was designed to be unacceptable to Russia, likely in the hope that Moscow would reject it outright, triggering an impulsive reaction from Trump and further entangling him in the Ukrainian quagmire.
But Moscow was not so easily outmaneuvered. The Kremlin quickly assessed the trap: A ceasefire would give Ukraine a much-needed strategic breather, allowing it to drag out negotiations indefinitely while reinforcing its position with continued Western military aid. Meanwhile, Russia would lose its battlefield momentum without any concrete concessions from Kiev or assurances of meaningful dialogue.
Putin’s response was measured and precise. He neither accepted nor rejected the proposal, instead praising Trump and offering to “work out the nuances” – all while setting his own conditions for a ceasefire: An immediate halt to US military aid and an end to mobilization in Ukraine.
Of these two conditions, the suspension of military aid is the more realistic. The Biden administration’s weapon shipments have already been delivered, and Trump was never eager to send new ones. The demand for Ukraine to halt mobilization, however, was clearly designed to put Zelensky in a difficult position. If he accepts, he weakens his war effort. If he refuses, he risks Trump’s wrath for obstructing peace. In essence, Putin returned the ‘ball’ to Kiev, along with a set of new challenges. As of this writing, Ukraine has yet to respond.
Watching the back-and-forth over a ceasefire, one might wonder: Is it really such a bad idea? Not necessarily. Despite prevailing opinions to the contrary, even for Russia, a well-structured ceasefire could be beneficial. It would provide an opportunity to achieve the objectives of the Special Military Operation through negotiations rather than prolonged bloodshed. To dismiss this option outright would be shortsighted.
But for a ceasefire to work, it cannot be as empty as the vague US-Ukrainian agreement of March 11. A rushed deal without clear commitments is open to abuse. Trump may not care about these details – his primary interest is in scoring political points to bolster his shaky poll numbers. But for Russia, which seeks a lasting settlement rather than a temporary pause, substance is far more important than optics.
A viable ceasefire must meet two essential conditions. First, as Putin has already stated, it must include ironclad guarantees that the opposing side will not exploit the truce for its own advantage. Second, it must serve as a trust-building measure, reflecting Ukraine’s genuine commitment to advancing the peace process – not just stalling for time.
In preliminary talks, Russia should demand specifics from Kiev on what happens after the ceasefire begins. A simple gesture of goodwill could be the revocation of Zelensky’s decree banning negotiations with Moscow. This should be followed by the lifting of martial law and the announcement of a date for Ukrainian presidential elections. If Trump is truly committed to his proposed three-step plan – ceasefire, elections, and peace – then persuading him of these steps should not be difficult. But Zelensky’s reaction will be telling.
The coming weeks will reveal whether, after further consultations between US and Russian officials – and potentially a direct call between Putin and Trump – the 30-day ceasefire plan evolves into something more concrete. The ideal outcome is a structured agreement that leads to lasting peace. But the reality may be very different.
For now, the diplomatic ball continues to be passed between Washington, Kiev, and Moscow. And the outcome remains uncertain.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team
