Politicians, journalists, and analysts react to the news of a proposed 30-day ceasefire

Following the high-level talks between US and Ukrainian delegations in Saudi Arabia, two major developments have dominated the media landscape. First, Russia has been proposed to agree to a 30-day ceasefire. Second, Washington is resuming military aid and intelligence support for Kiev. How Russian politicians, experts, and journalists are responding to this latest turn in negotiations - our report has the details.

Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs:

The final statement of the [Ukrainian and American] delegations shows that the meeting in Saudi Arabia has gone according to the US plan. The White House aimed to pressure Ukraine into acknowledging the need to align with its demands for a swift cessation of hostilities (a full ceasefire rather than the partial one mentioned by Kiev). In return, Washington promised to resume military assistance to Ukraine, which was previously suspended: agree to a ceasefire, the US said, and you'll get back what you had before. 

There's some ambiguity regarding the agreement on resources, which may need to be revised and approved. And there's still no clarity on security guarantees for Ukraine. It seems both issues are still being considered, as negotiations continue. The suggestion that Europe should be involved in the peace process indicates that Ukraine won't be left all alone. 

Overall, Ukraine has swallowed its shame (and Zelensky's humiliation) and capitulated by expressing "the Ukrainian people's strong gratitude to President Trump, the US Congress, and the people of the United States for facilitating meaningful progress toward peace." It didn't express gratitude for US support, but rather for facilitating progress towards peace. As Rubio noted, the ball is now in Russia's court, which aligns with US intentions. Ukraine has complied, and now, Russia is expected to enter the game. 

US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz has hinted that there are certain undisclosed agreements, but for now, we can only speculate about them. If we focus on the published text, the proposal in its current form contradicts Moscow's repeatedly stated position that no ceasefire will occur until the parameters of a comprehensive agreement ensuring lasting peace are established. In other words, the fighting will continue until a viable resolution is devised. 

However, since the US publicly shifted its stance from being a side in the conflict to an assertive mediator (something Trump announced during his memorable meeting with Zelensky), it has become apparent that the dynamics have changed. The Roman numerals seem to have switched places: the XXI century looks more like the XIX century as personal diplomacy between monarchs takes center stage, overshadowing ideological commitments and even military achievements. The outcome will depend on their personal agreements or the lack thereof - in any case, we will soon see the result. As for the royal persons holding these discussions, it is clear whom we are talking about.

Vice Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev: 

The outcome of the US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah reveals a clear truth: Zelensky's attempts to make "the tail wag the dog" may have worked with Biden, but not with Trump. 

The terms are set by the Americans, not the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians merely agree with what they are told, bowing and scraping. Just look at the absurdity of the following statement, "We'll sign the resource agreement when it suits Washington"! Zelensky is backed into a corner. As White House press secretary said, "Trump put Zelensky in his place." 

Russian troops are advancing, and so, dealings with Russia will be different. Any agreements (and we recognize the need for compromises) will come on our terms, not America's. This isn't just bravado; it's an acknowledgment that real agreements are still being forged on the front lines - a fact Washington should understand. 

For now, the main thing is not to let any extraneous comments disturb US-Russia negotiations. Let the negotiators do their job. Victory will be ours.

Head of Rossotrudnichestvo Evgeny Primakov:

What's ours is ours, and what's yours - we'll talk about that later. That's pretty much Trump's famous "art of the deal" in a nutshell. So, it's hardly surprising that the proposed ceasefire in exchange for renewed military aid and intelligence for Ukraine comes off as blatant manipulation. But I believe the game is much more complex.

First, starting with a door-slam approach is simply unprofessional. As they say in Odessa, that's not how business is done.

Secondly, let's consider the pause that the Americans have subtly suggested. Nowhere did they explicitly state that they expect an immediate ceasefire from Russia. A special envoy from Trump, Steve Witkoff is heading to Moscow; the US announced plans for a phone call between Trump and our president, and new negotiations with Russian officials have been announced.

What might this indicate amidst the rapidly changing situation on the Kursk front, where our forces are driving out Ukrainian occupiers and liberating one settlement after another? Trump himself has mentioned that the Ukrainian forces are retreating, so it's clear the White House understands what this pause means for the situation on the front. I suspect that the unstated part of this deal involves pushing Ukrainian forces out of Kursk region.

Thirdly, what is clear and directly follows from President Putin's statements, is that we have very specific conditions for any peace agreement. A mere ceasefire won't satisfy us; we need a resolution that addresses our interests and acknowledges the fundamental reasons behind the conflict.

These include Ukraine's neutral status, the rights of ethnic Russians, and our territories in the Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions. Under any circumstances, Ukraine must not pose a threat to Russia. This means we must prevent any risks of revanchism, which logically entails that Ukraine should not maintain offensive military capabilities or embrace an aggressive Nazi ideology aimed against Russia. Therefore, it will be necessary to dismantle several political and social institutions of the current Ukraine, and the education system must also be reformed. How willing is the US to include these issues in the negotiations? In any case, we have already outlined these conditions from our side.

And if we're talking about dismantling Ukraine's future military potential and ensuring its neutrality, then both these points completely contradict the idea of sending military supplies or placing NATO "peacekeepers" there.

Political analyst Sergey Markov:

Reasons why Russia might refuse a ceasefire:

1. A ceasefire would be exploited by the West and Ukraine to halt the advance of the Russian army, strip it of its initiative, supply the Ukrainian army with more weapons, continue extensive mobilization in Ukraine, and strengthen the repressive and anti-Russian nature of the Ukrainian political regime

2. The experience of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements clearly demonstrates this pattern

3. The consistent dishonesty of Western politicians and media regarding the conflict, as well as their refusal to acknowledge their own and Ukraine's culpability, strongly suggests that history will repeat itself 

4. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly stated that what Russia needs is lasting peace, not just a temporary ceasefire

5. The West cannot really be trusted 

6. Russia is advancing.  A ceasefire always benefits those who are retreating.

Journalist and VGTRK contributor Andrey Medvedev:

Here's a proposed negotiation position: establishing a 30-day ceasefire, but Ukraine must guarantee free exit from the country for all categories of citizens. 

Another requirement could be the withdrawal of all Ukrainian armed forces units beyond the borders of Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, along with the transfer of all territories to Russian authorities and the deployment of our military units. Essentially, this would align the situation on the ground with the norms of the Russian Constitution. They could pull back in a week and our troops could move in within another week, followed by two weeks for securing and fortifying the borders. 

While we probably won't see such a scenario unfold, it would be an ideal option. Because this kind of ceasefire would lead to irrevocable consequences for what remains of Ukraine. I know it's not very probable, but it's nice to dream.

Philosopher Alexander Dugin:

Trump is eager to end the war in Ukraine because his opponents from the Deep State have regrouped and launched a massive counterattack against him and Elon Musk. However, he has no clear plan on how to achieve this; he is simply not ready to withdraw from the war unilaterally yet. This is precisely the trap laid by the Democrats. Without resolving the Ukraine issue, Trump risks getting increasingly bogged down. That's the swamp for you. 

A ceasefire is not a serious proposition, especially when Ukraine is clearly starting to lose. But it will take time for everything to fall into place.

Valentin Bogdanov, Head of VGTRK Bureau in New York:

What does a 30-day ceasefire really mean? This is where things get tricky. Waltz claims that Ukraine is supposedly ready for peace. The problem is that in Kiev, the word "peace" often comes with various adjectives (the most popular being "just") that twist it into something Orwellian - a peace that quickly turns into war. This was evident the night before the negotiations, as Moscow faced a massive drone attack, which was followed by the good news of the liberation of Sudzha. For the Armed Forces of Ukraine, taking a 30-day pause to recover from setbacks in Kursk region is an ideal strategy, especially considering their experience in undermining numerous other ceasefires since 2014. This is particularly true if America continues to send weapons and provide intelligence support to Ukraine. 

Does Trump understand this? He probably does. That's why, asserting control at this interim stage, he first states that it takes two to tango (once again excluding Ukraine) and then indicates that he will soon call Putin. According to Trump, the Russian leader giving his agreement to the US offer would bring the parties "75% of the way", and dealing with Russia is "easier". However, success doesn't come from nowhere; an agreement still needs to be reached. Therefore, a subsequent round of negotiations is expected in Moscow, where, according to Axios, special envoy Witkoff is about to arrive.

Washington has yet to present any concrete proposals. Moreover, discussing proposals with subordinate proxies (an accurate description of the Kiev regime based on Rubio's recent comments on the nature of the Ukraine conflict) is hardly productive. Given that Russia's fundamental conditions are well-known - chiefly, lasting peace that considers our interests and demands - it's clear that achieving such peace requires addressing the root causes of the conflict.

If Trump manages to resolve these issues within 30 days, that would be fantastic. In three days it would be even better; three hours would be nothing short of spectacular. But there's also a chance he might not succeed at all. In that case, the ball - which Rubio has confidently claimed is now in Russia's court - could easily turn into a weight dragging him and Trump down.