IRIA News

6 minute read

Russian President Vladimir Putin signaled during a news conference on March 13, 2025, that Moscow is prepared to back a ceasefire in Ukraine. While outlining a series of preconditions that must be met before any truce could be agreed upon.

While speaking at a press conference alongside Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in Moscow, Putin stated, “We agree with the proposals to cease hostilities,” but quickly underlined that there were unresolved issues requiring detailed discussion with American counterparts, including a potential call with President Trump.

The ceasefire proposal

The proposal in question originated from a meeting held in Saudi Arabia, where teams from Washington and Kyiv convened to negotiate a pathway to peace. The resulting joint statement proposed an “immediate, interim” 30-day ceasefire on the front lines in Ukraine.

Emphasizing humanitarian concerns, the document called for “the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.” Notably, the statement did not delve into the specifics regarding sanctions on Russia or establish security guarantees for Ukraine. Moreover, it left the status of Ukrainian soldiers stationed in the Russian region of Kursk ambiguous.

Putin’s conditions for ceasefire

After nearly two days of silence on the proposal, Putin addressed the matter explicitly. He laid out three critical questions that Moscow felt needed clear, satisfactory answers before committing to a ceasefire.

The Kursk conundrum: The first issue raised by Putin pertained to the situation in Kursk. In August last year, Ukrainian forces made a surprise incursion into this Russian territory, capturing significant ground. Although Russian troops have since reclaimed approximately 1,100 square kilometers, nearly the entire area seized by Ukraine, the presence of Ukrainian forces in the region remains a contentious point.

Putin questioned, “Will all those who are there come out without a fight? Or will the Ukrainian leadership order them to lay down arms and surrender?” This inquiry underscores Moscow’s insistence on resolving territorial and military ambiguities before any ceasefire can be considered binding.

The risk of mobilization and re-arming: The second issue raised by Putin concerns the potential for Ukraine to use the 30-day pause to reinforce its military capabilities. Putin warned that the temporary cessation of war could allow Kyiv to mobilize additional troops and receive new weaponry, thereby offsetting recent setbacks not only in Kursk but also in eastern Ukraine, where Russian forces have been slowly gaining ground.

“Russian troops are advancing in almost all areas of the front. So how will these 30 days be used? For forced mobilization to continue in Ukraine, for weapons to be delivered there, for the newly-mobilized units to be trained? How can we, and how will we be guaranteed that nothing like that will happen? How will control be organized?” he asked.

The question reflects Moscow’s apprehension that the pause could inadvertently strengthen Ukraine’s military resolve, effectively turning the ceasefire into an opportunity for rearmament.

Verification and enforcement of the ceasefire: The third major concern centers on the monitoring and enforcement of the ceasefire itself. With the conflict spanning 2,000 kilometers, determining who has the authority to call a halt to hostilities, as well as who will adjudicate violations, is a matter of significant complexity.

“Who will give orders to stop hostilities? Who will determine where and who has violated a possible ceasefire agreement for 2,000 kilometers?” Putin said. This highlights Moscow’s insistence that any ceasefire must come with robust, mutually accepted verification mechanisms that not only monitor compliance but also ensure that the long-term causes of the conflict are addressed.

US and Ukrainian reactions

The Russian remarks emerged at a time when international efforts to broker peace are under intense scrutiny. The proposal for a ceasefire was put forward amid a flurry of diplomatic activity. Notably, U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, recently visited Russia and engaged with senior officials, marking the first high-level U.S. engagement with Moscow since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

During his visit, Witkoff was instrumental in facilitating a prisoner exchange, securing the release of American citizen Marc Fogel in return for Russian national Alexander Vinnik, underscoring the complex interplay between diplomacy and coercion in this conflict.

Zelensky criticizes Putin’s ceasefire response as ‘manipulative’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Putin’s response to the 30-day ceasefire proposal was “very predictable, very manipulative.” 

In stark contrast to the cautious approach taken by Moscow, Zelenskyy has been unequivocal in his criticism of the Russian stance. In his nightly address posted on X, Zelenskyy accused Putin of deliberately preparing to reject the ceasefire proposal.

“Putin is afraid to tell President Trump directly that he wants to continue this war and keep killing Ukrainians,” Zelenskyy declared. This statement reflects the deep-seated mistrust between Kyiv and Moscow, where any delay or conditionality imposed by Russia is seen as a tactic to prolong the conflict and undermine Ukraine’s position.

Zelenskyy called for heightened pressure on Putin, insisting that “Now is the time to increase pressure on him [Putin]. Sanctions must be applied, ones that will work.” Furthermore, the Ukrainian leader reiterated his country’s readiness to work closely with its US and European partners in advancing the peace process, emphasizing that any negotiations must ultimately serve to safeguard Ukraine’s territorial integrity and security.

Prospects for a negotiated peace

The unfolding developments present a precarious balancing act for all parties involved. On one hand, the idea of a ceasefire offers a glimmer of hope for halting the immediate bloodshed and paving the way for broader peace talks. On the other, the unresolved questions raised by Putin underscore the deep-seated issues that continue to fuel the conflict.

With Moscow’s insistence on addressing the Kursk situation, the potential for Ukrainian rearmament, and the challenge of verifying a ceasefire across a vast front, it is evident that any peace initiative must contend with complex military and political realities.

Some experts believe that President Trump’s past willingness to engage with Moscow could play a decisive role in shaping the outcome. If the U.S. decides to accommodate Putin’s concerns, it may leave Ukraine with limited leverage, forcing Kyiv to accept terms that could compromise its negotiating position. However, given the current tensions and the starkly different perspectives from Washington and Kyiv, the likelihood of a mutually acceptable compromise remains uncertain.

The responses from Trump and Zelenskyy reveal a world divided on the path to peace. As diplomatic channels continue to operate against a backdrop of extensive sanctions and a fluid battlefield, the coming days will be critical in determining whether this ceasefire can serve as a genuine step toward a long-term resolution or merely a temporary pause that benefits one side over the other.