Why did Putin reject the US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal?

Without a clear indication that Ukraine is ready to meet Russia’s core demands, Putin would have no advantage whatsoever in pausing the conflict

Just as I predicted in my latest article (published on Wednesday), on Thursday Putin rejected the US-Ukrainian proposal for an immediate 30-day ceasefire.

This was to expected. What Ukraine and the US were proposing to Russia was to immediately stop hostilities and then begin working out the framework of a more comprehensive peace agreement. But Russia has always taken an opposite approach, insisting on the need to agree on the broad terms of a settlement before any ceasefire could be considered.

The reason is rather obvious: without a clear indication that Ukraine is ready to meet Russia’s core demands — above all, formal recognition of Russia’s annexed territories as part of the Russian Federation, and the adoption of neutral, non-aligned status, coupled with demilitarisation — Russia would have no advantage whatsoever in pausing the conflict, especially at a time when it continues to gain battlefield advantages, particularly in the Kursk region, which has been almost entirely liberated, as this would simply give Ukrainians time to “retreat, regroup and rearm”, as Putin said. This is rooted in Russia’s perception of the Minsk agreements as a Western ploy to buy Ukraine time to pursue a military solution — as confirmed by several Western leaders.

However, Ukraine has so far given no indication that it is ready to concede to Russia’s demands. Indeed, just days ago Zelensky reiterated his opposition to any territorial concession. Moreover, according to Ukrainian media, Ukraine’s “red lines” for entering peace talks apparently include “no restrictions on the size of the defence forces and no prohibitions on Ukraine’s participation in international organisations, including the EU and NATO”. At these conditions, Russia has absolutely nothing to gain from entering a ceasefire.

In the background, you also have the Europeans, who just the other day outlined a “peace strategy” that involved boosting Ukraine’s military capabilities (including through the delivery of air defence systems, ammunition and missiles) in order to improve its position at the negotiating table and achieve a deal that “respects Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity”. In other words, no territorial concessions. This would be followed by strong security guarantees in the form of European (i.e., NATO) troops on the ground — a demand echoed by Zelensky but firmly rejected by Russia.

In other words, the parties are nowhere near to agreeing on the broader framework that Russia views as a necessary precondition for any cessation of the hostilities. So what did Putin say exactly? He expressed general support for the idea of a ceasefire, stating, “The idea itself is correct, and we certainly support it”, and “We agree with the proposals to halt the fighting”. However, he raised significant concerns and outlined conditions that would need to be met for Russia to fully commit.

“We want guarantees that during the 30-day ceasefire, Ukraine will not mobilise, will not train soldiers and will not receive weapons”, Putin said — a reference not only to Europe’s intention to boost Ukraine’s military capabilities, but also to the US decision to resume military assistance to Ukraine. Putin questioned how the ceasefire would be enforced, asking, “Who will give orders to cease hostilities, and what will these orders be worth?”.

He emphasised that any ceasefire should “lead to lasting peace and remove the root causes of the crisis”, aligning with Russia’s long-standing demands, including Ukraine recognising Russia’s annexation of Crimea and four southeastern regions, withdrawing troops from those areas and pledging not to join NATO. Putin indicated a need for further discussion to clarify these “nuances” and establish mechanisms to prevent Ukraine from using the truce to strengthen its military position. “These are all questions that require painstaking research from both sides”, he concluded.

Other Russian diplomats used even blunter tones. “Our position is that this [ceasefire] is nothing more than a temporary respite for the Ukrainian military, nothing more”, said Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov. The Russian ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin reinforced this view: “We will consider the American proposal for a ceasefire. We will stop military actions only when we have a full, comprehensive agreement. Russia has repeatedly stated that a temporary ceasefire is not an option for resolving the situation”.

It’s worth emphasising the fact that Russia’s response to the US-Ukrainian proposal was entirely predictable. Anyone with a basic understanding of the situation could have predicted that Moscow would not have accepted a ceasefire under the current conditions. But, as I wrote the other day, that may have been precisely the point from the perspective of Zelensky and European leaders: to “put the ball in Russia’s court”, anticipating that Moscow would reject the offer — thus allowing them to portray Russia as uninterested in peace, and giving them an excuse to continue the war.

In fact, they are already spinning this narrative. In a video address on Thursday night, Zelensky accused Putin of manipulating the ceasefire narrative to prolong the war, and said that Russia’s preconditions were aimed at ensuring that “nothing will work out at all, or for as long as possible”. Earlier that day, Zelensky had noted on X that Russia’s lack of a meaningful response showed its intent to “prolong the war and postpone peace”, calling for US pressure to force Russia into ending the conflict, presumably on Ukraine’s terms. Any attempt by the US to strong-arm Russia into an unsatisfactory deal, however, is bound to fail, and will only guarantee the continuation of the conflict, suggesting that the one intent on prolonging the war here is Zelensky himself, likely backed by the Europeans.

The question is thus how will Trump respond now that Putin has thrown the ball back in the US’s court. At the moment, he seems to be adopting a carrot-and-stick approach: he described Putin’s statement as “very promising”, while at the same time making veiled threats that Russia could face “devastating” financial repercussions if it decides to continue the war. Indeed, on March 12, Trump actually allowed a Biden-era sanctions exemption, which had permitted sanctioned Russian banks to process European payments for oil sales, to expire.

This exemption, originally part of a broader sanctions package imposed by the Biden administration in January 2025 targeting Russia’s energy sector, included a 60-day wind-down period to give European countries time to adjust. That period ended on March 12, and Trump did not renew it, effectively blocking these banks from accessing US payment systems for energy transactions. As a result, European countries can no longer legally purchase Russian oil through these channels without facing US sanctions. In other words, the Trump sanctions regime is now even broader than the one put in place by Biden.

This move is clearly designed to pressure Russia, but it is unlikely to succeed. Not only has Moscow demonstrated a remarkable ability to withstand Western sanctions, but on a deeper level, such tactics send precisely the wrong signals. From Russia’s perspective, the West — particularly the United States — instigated this war through its reckless policies in Ukraine and along NATO’s eastern flank. In Moscow’s view, any lasting resolution must address the root causes of the conflict, which extend beyond Ukraine’s NATO aspirations to the broader issue of Western disregard for Russia’s legitimate security concerns.

By attempting to strong-arm Russia into a quick settlement without addressing these deeper grievances, Trump will only reinforce Russia’s belief that negotiations are futile and that only military means can guarantee its security. Moreover, it confirms Putin’s longstanding stance that the West operates through threats and force rather than diplomacy. This will only hardens Russia’s position.

If the goal is a genuine and lasting peace, a strategy based on pressure and ultimatums is the worst possible approach. Of course, it is possible that Trump’s public statements are intended for Western domestic audiences, and that he’s playing a different game behind the scenes. Time will tell. For now, the war grinds on.

---

Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

Twitter: @battleforeurope

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)