Russia’s stance on a proposed 30-day ceasefire with Ukraine, brokered by the United States, has taken a firm turn. The Kremlin, through senior aide Yuri Ushakov, has expressed skepticism, arguing that such a pause in hostilities would primarily benefit Ukraine by offering its beleaguered forces a chance to regroup. This position comes amid heightened military activity, including Ukraine’s massive drone barrage on Moscow on March 11 and Russia’s ongoing advances in the Kursk region, raising questions about the timing and implications of a truce.
Russia’s military has been making steady progress, reclaiming roughly two-thirds of the territory Ukraine seized in Kursk last summer and positioning itself for potential new offensives in southern and northern Ukraine. Ushakov, a key foreign policy voice for President Vladimir Putin, told Russian media that a ceasefire now would serve as “nothing more than a short reprieve for Ukrainian forces.” He framed Russia’s rejection as a preference for a “long-term peace settlement” that addresses Moscow’s demands—namely, territorial concessions and a rollback of NATO influence—rather than a temporary halt that could bolster Kyiv’s defenses.
The backdrop to this rhetoric is telling. On March 12, Putin visited Kursk, urging his troops to secure a swift victory as they recaptured key settlements. This display of confidence suggests Moscow sees itself holding a strong hand, particularly after Ukraine’s drone attack disrupted Russian cities but failed to shift the battlefield momentum. Analysts on platforms like X have echoed this sentiment, noting that a ceasefire could interrupt Russia’s plans for a strategic push, especially with spring conditions potentially favoring further advances.
Ukraine, meanwhile, has embraced the U.S.-backed proposal following talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on March 11. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the discussions “constructive,” suggesting the ceasefire could pave the way for broader peace negotiations. The resumption of U.S. intelligence and military aid, paused earlier in March, adds weight to Kyiv’s willingness to pause fighting, likely to reinforce its strained frontlines after three years of war. Yet, Russia interprets this as a sign of weakness, with Ushakov arguing it “imitates peace actions” while allowing Ukraine to recover.
Moscow’s demands remain steep: full withdrawal from four Ukrainian regions it partially controls, no NATO membership for Kyiv, and no foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. These terms, reiterated in recent talks with U.S. officials, clash with Ukraine’s insistence on security guarantees and territorial integrity. The Kremlin’s dismissal of the ceasefire as a tactical boon for Ukraine reflects its belief that current battlefield dynamics favor Russia, reducing the incentive to freeze the conflict without major concessions.
As U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff arrives in Moscow to press the case, and Trump threatens financial repercussions if Russia balks, the diplomatic stakes are high. For now, Russia’s leadership appears convinced that pausing the war would disproportionately aid Ukraine, potentially stalling Moscow’s momentum at a critical juncture. Whether this calculus shifts depends on the Kremlin’s assessment of its military edge versus the risks of alienating a new Trump administration eager to broker peace.
USA = Green
Russia = Red
Ukraine = Blue
Image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license and was created using MapChart(https://mapchart.net).
