It Takes Two to Tango: Why Russia Could Impede Hope for a Ceasefire in Ukraine

At the meeting between the US and Ukrainian delegations in Jeddah on March 11, the early stages of a ‘durable peace for Ukraine’ were discussed. Top of the agenda was a thirty day ceasefire, with a joint statement declaring that “Ukraine expressed readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation.”

But is this realistic?

‘Acceptance’ and ‘implementation’ by the Russian Federation will likely be the obstacle. Ultimately, a ceasefire requires Moscow's cooperation and, unfortunately, this seems neither likely, nor logical. 

The Kremlin is already attempting to make progress on the matter difficult. On March 13, Russian Presidential aide Yuri Ushakov claimed that a ceasefire deal is “nothing more than a temporary respite for the Ukrainian military”. On the same day, Vladimir Putin rejected any short-term solution that didn't address the “root causes” of the conflict, hinting at a permanent solution based on demands that were reportedly similar to those previously presented to Ukraine, the US, and NATO. These demands likely include clauses that prohibit Ukraine from joining international organisations like the EU or NATO, seeking to create a “disarmed and defenceless Ukraine with virtually no army of its own and no chance of receiving any meaningful military aid from the international community” - Zelensky will not entertain this notion.

Cardinally, the US has already shown its hand regarding its support for Ukraine. Having suspended aid to Ukraine on March 3 due to Zelensky not being “ready for peace”, it’s clear that, without moves towards a peaceful resolution from the Ukrainian side, US support is in jeopardy. US military aid to Ukraine thus far is approximately $66.5 billion since the full-scale invasion began in 2022, far exceeding the next closest contributor – Germany with $13.6 billion. As such, if Russia can stall talks, it is more likely to achieve either more favourable terms in a lasting peace settlement or push the White House to suspend aid once again, both of which are more favourable outcomes for Russia than a ceasefire.

It must not be forgotten that success in Ukraine will be part of Putin’s legacy, and the optics of a ceasefire are more difficult for Russia’s political elite to stomach. Ultimately, combatants in a position to succeed are unlikely to want a ceasefire. News of a ceasefire would be reported back in Russia, where the situation in Ukraine is predominantly hushed or spun as a success. It is significantly easier to twist a challenging conflict situation than persuade the Russian people that a ceasefire means the operation is going according to plan.

Furthermore, the situation on the frontline does not incentivise a pause in the conflict for Russia. In recent weeks, Russia has been making steady gains across several fronts, most notably recapturing Sudzha, which was captured by Ukrainian forces in their first offensive into Russian territory launched in August 2024, and putting substantial pressure on the besieged city of Pokrovsk in Donetsk Oblast. These losses are ominous for Ukraine and point to cracks appearing in a resilient Ukrainian defence, which will buoy Russian commanders.  

The situation in the wider conflict further disincentivises Russia’s agreement to a ceasefire. Throughout the fighting, Ukraine’s predominant problem has been its manpower struggles, whilst Russia has suffered more with technological and equipment limitations. Ukraine reportedly has around 980,000 combat-ready forces, compared to a Russian force that will soon increase to 1.5 million, reportedly recruiting up to 50,000 personnel per month in the final months of 2024. A temporary ceasefire, then, is far more advantageous to Ukraine, allowing its outnumbered forces to rest and reorganise, and providing the opportunity to replenish weakened units and provide training. By contrast, Russia’s equipment issues are more protracted and cannot be fixed in a month, with supply chains requiring a longer lead time to address.

Compounding this, a ceasefire would allow Ukraine’s allies a risk-free window to deliver military equipment should the war start again and allow a month’s head start to Europe’s ‘ReArm Europe’ plan that followed the US’s withdrawal. This plan provides “EUR 150 billion of loans to Member States for defence investment”, thus allowing the headroom for EU states to “massively step up their support for Ukraine”. Whilst the parties could include provisions to stop the ceasefire window being used to bring forward equipment, this requires an element of trust that simply isn't there: one only needs to remember the weeks before the invasion in February 2022, when Russia secretly amassed some 190,000 troops on the Ukrainian border to conclude that Russia would likely use a ceasefire period as an opportunity to manoeuvre. Thus, Ukraine would face the choice of potentially disadvantaging itself by adhering to such clauses, or violating the ceasefire agreement, so it is unreasonable to think that the parties would either want to include such clauses in an agreement or intend to stick to them if they were included.

Thus, despite Ukraine and the US being prepared to commence ceasefire talks, the optimism on the issue seems to forget a crucial element: Does a ceasefire make sense for Russia?

And on the whole, the answer is no.

There is simply no benefit for Russia in accepting a ceasefire. With Russia’s strategic situation improving naturally, a ceasefire would primarily benefit Ukraine by allowing them to recuperate and re-adjust for renewed conflict at the end of the brief pause. Compounding this, the US has demonstrated a weakness in its willingness to support Ukraine unequivocally, incentivising Russia to prolong active conflict and allow fractures to appear naturally between the US and Ukraine.

Maybe, if the US had doubled down on its support for Ukraine, there would have been cause for Russia to consider proposals. The White House appears to have blundered at a critical moment, which could be devastating for the chances of peace, temporary or lasting.

Image: Flickr/President of Ukraine

Licence.

No image changes made.