Russian President Vladimir Putin has just announced a second unilateral ceasefire in as many days, but this new trend does not reflect a genuine desire for peace. On the contrary, Putin’s brazen new ceasefire gambit suggests a man emboldened by the West’s weakness, who is now more confident than ever that he can continue to play the US-led peace process without seriously disrupting his invasion of Ukraine.
In early March, Ukraine agreed to an American proposal for an unconditional ceasefire. Almost two months later, Russia still refuses to follow suit. As a result, many observers draw the obvious conclusion that Russia, not Ukraine, is the main obstacle to peace. In an apparent attempt to counter this growing consensus and distract from Russia’s reluctance to end the war, Putin has recently begun declaring his own short-term ceasefires. His first move was announcing a surprise 30-hour Easter truce during traditional Orthodox religious holidays in Russia and Ukraine. Now Putin is proposing a three-day break in hostilities to mark Victory Day on May 9.
The timing of Putin’s latest truce is particularly interesting. Critics point out that his Victory Day truce coincides with a major military parade in Moscow to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany. Putin is expected to host a number of high-profile foreign dignitaries at the event, including the leaders of China, Brazil, and India. It goes without saying that it would be extremely awkward for the Kremlin dictator if his propaganda parade were marred by Ukrainian airstrikes in Moscow or elsewhere in Russia.
Many have already noted the cynicism of Putin’s proposal. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded by reaffirming his commitment to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, accusing the Kremlin of trying to “manipulate the world” and “fool the United States” with empty ceasefire tricks. “We value human lives, not parades,” he said. Officials in Brussels have also criticized the Kremlin. “Russia can stop killing and bombing at any time, so there is no need to wait until May 8,” said European Commission spokeswoman Anita Hipper. Meanwhile, the Trump White House has responded by emphasizing the need for a “permanent ceasefire.”
Putin’s shamelessly selfish call for a ceasefire on Victory Day says much about his opportunistic approach to the shaky peace process initiated by the United States in early 2025. Like the 30-hour lull in fighting Putin initiated over the Easter holidays, the three-day truce proposed this week is too short to have any meaningful impact on the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. But it allows the Russian ruler to pose as a peacemaker while continuing his invasion.
Putin’s headline-grabbing ceasefires are also an important part of his stalling tactics, as he seeks to drag out peace talks indefinitely without exhausting U.S. President Donald Trump’s patience or closing the door to a potential broader warming of bilateral relations with the United States. It is no coincidence that both of Putin’s recent ceasefire announcements came immediately after critical comments from Trump, indicating that the U.S. leader was tired of Russia’s excuses. Indeed, news of the Victory Day ceasefire came just hours after Trump questioned Russia’s willingness to end the war and commented that he feared Putin was “beckoning me along.”
While Putin has been busy making dubious peace gestures, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently offered a much more realistic view of the Kremlin’s war aims and its continued commitment to conquering Ukraine. In an interview with Brazil’s O Globo newspaper published the same day Putin announced the Victory Day ceasefire, Lavrov listed Russia’s conditions for potential talks with Ukraine. These include international recognition of Russia’s right to five partially occupied Ukrainian provinces, the lifting of all sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014, guarantees of Ukraine’s neutrality, and a reduction of Ukraine’s military to a skeleton.
Crucially, Moscow also insists on the “denazification” of Ukraine, which is recognized as the Kremlin’s code for the comprehensive “de-Ukrainization” of the country and the restoration of Russian dominance in all spheres of public life. If implemented, these punitive Russian conditions will not lead to sustainable peace. Instead, they will serve as an act of capitulation, setting the stage for the eventual destruction of Ukraine as a state and a nation.
This is all a far cry from the Trump administration’s frequent insistence that both sides must be willing to compromise if they are to reach a viable settlement. While Ukraine has repeatedly supported calls for an unconditional ceasefire and acknowledged the need for temporary territorial concessions, Russia continues to pursue maximalist goals that no Ukrainian government can accept.
For the first 100 days of his presidency, Trump sought to advance the peace process by pressuring Ukraine while offering Russia a wide range of incentives to engage. It should now be abundantly clear that this uneven approach has backfired. Instead of persuading Putin to make his own concessions, Trump’s appeasement has convinced the Kremlin to further tighten its demands. We have now reached the point where Putin believes he can personally pause the war to hold a military parade on Red Square before resuming the invasion three days later. This absurdity makes a complete mockery of Trump’s peace efforts and threatens to make him look foolish.
If Trump is serious about bringing Russia to the negotiating table, he must first demonstrate a willingness to impose unsustainable costs on the Kremlin. The current U.S. strategy toward Russia can be characterized as one of pure carrot and stick. It is useless against a regime that understands only the language of force and views any attempt at compromise as a sign of weakness. It also seriously underestimates the high stakes underlying Russia’s intervention. Putin views the war in Ukraine as a historic mission to reverse the imperial collapse of 1991 and restore Russia to its rightful place as a global superpower. He will not abandon that mission unless the alternative is defeat.
Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council's UkraineAlert service.
Source: Source
