What lies behind Putin’s second so-called ceasefire

In response to Vladimir Putin's latest proposal for a “three-day truce,” the global reaction was unusually unanimous, with skeptical and harsh assessments ranging from the United States to Europe. 

The Kremlin's desire tied to the Russian May 9 holiday, raised suspicions of manipulation and unwillingness to make a real peace. Trump's special envoy Keith Kellogg called the initiative absurd, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb warned that Washington was running out of patience. What is the essence of the Kremlin's maneuver, how is Ukraine reacting, and why Trump can change the tone of the game - we will analyze in this analytical material. 

Truce in a festive wrapper: what the Kremlin is really up to 

May 8, 2025 was supposed to be the beginning of another “truce” in the Russian-Ukrainian war. Vladimir Putin's proposal to cease fire for three days, symbolically during the May 9 celebrations in Russia, looked not like a gesture of peace but like another political stunt. And the world understood this perfectly.

The three-day ceasefire, like most of the Kremlin's proposals in recent years, is an example of political mimicry: looking peaceful to an international audience while not conceding any real position. British intelligence immediately put this gesture on the shelves: Russia wants to create the illusion of constructiveness in order to limit Ukraine's actions, especially in long-range strikes, and at the same time prevent changes in the front line while Russian troops regroup.

Putin's three-day “peace” reflects a classic strategy familiar from Soviet times: give the minimum and demand the maximum. This is how Moscow once offered a “ceasefire” in Afghanistan only to strengthen its positions and then attack again with renewed vigor.

The US reaction: absurd conditions and a bet on a long-term ceasefire

However, the world no longer takes such tricks for granted. US Special Representative Keith Kellogg reacted immediately and harshly, calling the three-day ceasefire “absurd.” He clearly outlined Washington's position: The United States is interested in a comprehensive ceasefire - on land, in the air, at sea, and in infrastructure - for at least 30 days, with the possibility of extension. And here an important thesis was voiced: an understanding has been reached with the Ukrainians, and the only question is Putin's readiness.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expressed a similar opinion: a three-day ceasefire is not enough, a just and lasting peace is needed. For the first time in a long time, European leaders spoke almost in unison.

Trump and the Kremlin: why Washington is running out of patience

And what about Donald Trump? After all, Kellogg represents his political line. The situation here is more interesting. According to an interview with Finnish President Alexander Stubb for The New York Times, Trump's patience with Putin is rapidly running out. Stubb emphasized that we are already seeing harsh statements about Moscow, and if the Kremlin does not change its approach, the United States may take tougher measures. “President Trump is not to be trifled with,” Stubb emphasized, and this eloquently outlines the new atmosphere.

It is also important that Stubb recognized the possibility of a “creative approach” to the wording of a peace agreement, particularly on the issue of Crimea. This is a signal that the United States and Europe will look for a model of compromise, but not at the expense of Ukraine, but through nuances in legal language.

After his meeting with Zelenskyy in the Vatican, Trump once again publicly criticized Russia for its strikes on Ukrainian cities, questioned Putin's sincerity in wanting peace, and threatened new sanctions. And he has already openly stated: Putin must stop the fighting and conclude a peace agreement.

Thus, Putin's three-day truce is not a step toward peace, but an attempt to stall for time and play the situation in his favor. However, the situation is actually changing. Unlike six months ago, not only Ukraine and Europe, but also the United States are now putting pressure on Putin, and from a position of less and less tolerance for the war's prolongation.

Ukraine's position: no guarantees of peace – no pause for the aggressor

Ukraine met Putin's proposal for a three-day ceasefire with understandable skepticism. Kyiv understands that any short-term pause without real guarantees and international control only works in favor of the aggressor. The historical experience of attempts at a “truce” with Russia-from Minsk to numerous “regimes of silence” has left the Ukrainian political leadership with a clear understanding: each such pause without real changes at the front only leads to the enemy's accumulation of forces for new attacks.

In response to the Kremlin's initiative, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke bluntly: “We will not give the enemy a single chance to regroup or get a break under the guise of a truce. Real peace cannot last for three days. Real peace is the end of the occupation and the withdrawal of Russian troops from our land.”

In his evening address, Zelenskyy also emphasized that any negotiations or pauses should be based on real steps by Russia, not on manipulative statements: “The truce proposed by the aggressor, who bombs our cities every day, looks like another attempt to deceive the world. We must remember that a ceasefire without peace is a trap.”

Thus, Ukraine has made it clear to its partners and the world that there can be no ceasefire without real security guarantees, the withdrawal of Russian troops and the beginning of the de-occupation of Ukrainian territories. Neither three-day nor thirty-day “ceasefires” can be the goal by themselves. Only real progress towards restoring justice and respect for international law can become the basis for peace.

Ukraine's position today is not just about protecting its own national interests. It is a test of the strength of the international order, where the right of the strong should not replace the international right.And that is why the support of Ukraine by its allies remains critically important.

What happens next: scenarios and diplomatic calculations

The United States, through Kellogg and other channels, will continue to put pressure on Russia. If the Kremlin does not take real steps, we can expect tougher actions, including tougher sanctions and a new wave of diplomatic isolation. Trump, despite his own interests in reaching a deal quickly, is ready to get tough if Putin continues his delaying tactics. The European Union will seek a balance: to support the peace process, but at the same time try to protect its interests in the broader security architecture of the continent.

Thus, Putin's short three-day ceasefire has become a kind of litmus test for who is serious about ending the war and how seriously. And so far, it seems that a real strategy for ending the conflict is just beginning to unfold, but its tone is no longer set in the Kremlin.

Three days is a moment. But a wrong reaction to it could cost Ukraine its future. It seems that for the first time in a long time, the world has not fallen for a beautiful wrapper with no real content.

Ihor Petrenko, founder of the “United Ukraine” Think Tank, Doctor of Political Sciences