Ukraine recently indicated openness to a ceasefire, posing a dilemma for the Kremlin amid its military’s current strategic advantage. Russia now faces the decision of whether to accept a temporary halt, leaving room for potential gains, or to reject the move, which could stymie ongoing efforts to mend ties with Washington.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently rejected calls for a temporary cessation of hostilities. He believes such a truce would only serve Ukraine and its Western allies, allowing them time to regroup and resupply. Putin advocates for a comprehensive agreement ensuring long-term peace.
The Kremlin has responded cautiously to Ukraine’s acceptance of a U.S.-proposed truce during recent talks in Saudi Arabia, awaiting details before voicing a concrete stance. The strategic delicacy shown signals Putin’s awareness of the risks involved with an outright refusal, which might hamper efforts to restore Russia-U.S. relations.
Analysts suggest Putin might seek to attach conditions to any truce, safeguarding Moscow’s interests rather than dismissing it outright. This cautious approach could accommodate a truce under certain favorable terms.
The Kremlin potentially opposes a ceasefire due to its improved military position over the past year. Russian forces have made consistent territorial gains along a 1,000-kilometer front line, accelerating their progress in the fall with substantial territorial acquisitions.
Ukraine had launched an unexpected offensive in Russia’s Kursk region in August, attempting to divert Russian operations and gain momentum for future negotiations over occupied territories. This strategy, however, strained Ukraine’s defensive resources, failing to hinder Russian advances in Donetsk.
Moreover, Moscow has severely impaired Ukraine’s energy infrastructure through waves of missile and drone assaults, crippling its power generation capacity.
Putin maintains that pausing confrontations now, when Russian forces have the advantage, would inefficaciously benefit Ukrainian troops, allowing regeneration and rearmament. He emphasizes a need for a durable peace agreement, dismissing the idea of a brief reprieve.
Additionally, Moscow explicitly opposes the inclusion of NATO troops as monitors in any prospective peace settlement.
Putin’s strategic goals since the onset of the invasion on February 24, 2022, include Ukraine’s NATO renunciation, reduction in its military capabilities, protection of the Russian language, and retention within Moscow’s sphere of influence. He also demands a withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from four Russian-seized regions.
Moreover, the Kremlin seeks the unfreezing of Russian assets in the West and the lifting of U.S. and European Union sanctions. Russia is aligning with the need to resolve the underlying crisis causes, referencing NATO’s military buildup near its borders as a significant security threat.
The legitimacy of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to endorse a peace deal is contested by Putin, considering Zelenskyy’s expired mandate amidst ongoing conflict. The U.S. President has echoed Moscow’s perspective on the need for elections in Ukraine.
Observers believe that rather than rejecting the truce offer outright, Putin may propose certain stipulations. Pro-Kremlin commentator Sergei Markov suggested a potential Russian agreement to a truce if Ukraine’s allies halt arms supplies to Kyiv, with weapons shipments resuming after the Saudi talks.
Russia might consent to a ceasefire if it leads to Ukrainian elections, which are contingent on lifting martial law. Such a process, Moscow believes, could aid in shaping Ukrainian politics, fostering amicable relations by peaceful means.
Foreign policy expert Alexei Naumov anticipates Russia’s acceptance of the ceasefire if resulting in an election, seeing the talks as a bid for favor with U.S. influence.
Sam Greene from the Center for European Policy Analysis indicates that a definitive “no” from Putin to the ceasefire is improbable. Greene argues that Putin might leverage the negotiation process to achieve more than on the battlefield, perceiving the suspension of U.S. military aid and sanction talks as substantial victories.
Putin’s opposition to a temporary pause implies Russia’s interest in negotiating benefits throughout the process. Greene notes that the desired ceasefire is unlikely to align with Ukrainian or European interests but could appeal to the U.S. perspective. Moscow may find the process beneficial, provided it is largely governed by Washington.