As of noon on Thursday, March 13, 2025, Russia’s response to the proposed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine, brokered by the United States and accepted by Kyiv following talks in Saudi Arabia on March 11, remains cautious and noncommittal. President Vladimir Putin has indicated a tentative willingness to consider the ceasefire in principle, expressing gratitude to President Donald Trump for his efforts to end the conflict during a press conference with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. However, Putin has emphasized that any truce must address the “root causes” of the war and include guarantees that Ukraine will not use the pause to rearm or mobilize, while also halting Western military aid. This suggests Russia is using the proposal as an opportunity to negotiate from a position of strength, particularly as its forces have recently made gains in the Kursk region, reclaiming significant territory from Ukrainian control.
 

The Kremlin’s official stance, articulated through spokesman Dmitry Peskov, has been to withhold a definitive response pending detailed briefings from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who are expected to clarify the terms via diplomatic channels. This hesitation aligns with a broader pattern of skepticism from Russian officials and nationalist voices, who view the ceasefire as a potential trap that could benefit Ukraine by allowing it to regroup and receive renewed Western support. Putin’s rare appearance in military fatigues in Kursk on March 12, where he vowed to continue fighting until Ukrainian forces are expelled, further underscores a hardline posture, signaling that Moscow may demand significant concessions—such as Ukraine’s withdrawal from Kursk, demilitarization, or recognition of annexed territories—before agreeing to any pause. This stance raises doubts about the ceasefire’s viability, especially given Russia’s history of violating past agreements like the Minsk accords.
 

Critically examining the narrative, Russia’s apparent openness to dialogue could be a strategic ploy to buy time, rebuild its military capabilities, and test Western resolve, as suggested by some analysts and posts found on X reflecting public sentiment. The Kremlin’s demands, including a potential buffer zone in Ukraine’s Sumy region and restrictions on NATO involvement, indicate a desire to lock in territorial gains and weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty, rather than pursue a genuine peace. Ukraine and its allies, including the U.S., have stressed that any deal must respect Kyiv’s territorial integrity, a condition Russia has historically rejected, as seen in its refusal to cede annexed regions like Donetsk and Luhansk. With U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly heading to Moscow to present the proposal, the coming days will reveal whether Putin’s rhetoric translates into action or if this ceasefire effort, like previous attempts, collapses under the weight of mutual distrust and competing geopolitical interests.