The Kremlin has yet to respond formally to the 30-day ceasefire proposal that surfaced following discussions between the US and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.
However, initial feedback from Kremlin-affiliated media outlets indicates a reluctance to accept an immediate truce, suggesting that doing so may be at odds with Russia’s strategic goals.
Russian analysts seem to be largely in agreement, interpreting the current situation as unfavorable for the Kremlin to pause its military operations, particularly given what they perceive as a frontline advantage. “Any agreements will be on our terms, not America’s,” remarked Russian senator Konstantin Kosachev the day after the talks in Jeddah.
In a striking article, state-controlled RIA Novosti headlined “Ukraine Capitulated in Jeddah,” suggesting that Ukraine had bowed to US pressure regarding ceasefire conditions. “Russia is being asked to accept a ceasefire while its enemy is losing on the battlefield,” the journalist asserted, encapsulating the prevailing sentiment in Russian media, which has extensively covered recent successes in expelling Ukrainian forces from the Kursk region.
With the recapture of Sudzha by Russian troops, the Kremlin is portrayed as holding a strong hand in future peace negotiations. Notably, President Vladimir Putin made a visit to Kursk last night, marking his first trip to the area since part of it was captured by Ukrainian forces last year.
Reflecting on the outcomes of the Jeddah talks, RIA Novosti stated, “For Moscow, the results were disappointing, particularly as the US has resumed military support to Ukraine.” The article concluded with a firm stance: “Accepting the Jeddah proposal in its current form is off the table,” highlighting Russia’s key demands that remain unmet.
This perspective is consistently echoed throughout Russian press responses to the ceasefire proposal, frequently referring to the conditions laid out by President Putin in his address to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in June 2024. Mr. Putin’s insistence on a complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions underscores his unwavering position. Despite annexing these territories in 2022, full control remains elusive, and the international community continues to reject these claims.
Furthermore, Mr. Putin has called for Ukraine to abandon its NATO aspirations and for all Western sanctions to be lifted. Pro-Kremlin journalists consistently affirm that the President is unlikely to compromise on these demands.
In a piece published on another pro-Kremlin platform, Radio Sputnik, negotiations between the Ukrainian and American delegations in Saudi Arabia were derided as “nothing more than the antics and posturing of political parrots, as well as an attempt to dupe Russia.” Additionally, Komsomolskaya Pravda, a leading Russian tabloid, featured an interview with a professor from the Higher School of Economics who speculated that Russia’s advances in the Kursk region might have prompted Ukraine to entertain the US ceasefire proposal. He even suggested that had Kyiv rejected the ceasefire, the US might have considered arresting President Volodymyr Zelensky—a claim many deemed pure propaganda, lacking legal or diplomatic merit.
In Kommersant, a renowned business outlet, an analysis titled “Trump vs Europe” expressed skepticism regarding Europe’s role in future negotiations, stating that for Mr. Trump and his team, European “globalists, Atlanticists, liberal values, and the export of democracy” are viewed as ideologically foreign. Moreover, the analyst claimed to be privy to the terms discussed during the recent phone conversation between the US and Russian presidents, including stipulations against NATO membership for Ukraine and a possible leadership change in Kyiv.
Additionally, Lenta.ru, a popular online news outlet in Russia, quoted war correspondents responding harshly to the ceasefire proposal. “Shove it up your a**,” one correspondent was quoted in a stark expression of discontent. He added, “Once again, they’re opening the flow of weapons and intelligence. Ukraine stockpiles all of this for a month, and then Russia is blamed for the continuation of the war?” This sentiment was further reflected in an article on the nationalist pro-Kremlin site Regnum, which observed that unlike Mr. Trump, President Putin is “in no rush to end the war.” The author also cautioned of potential future invasions into Ukrainian territory, suggesting that by summer, Ukraine may lack sufficient military aid to contend with new Russian-Belarusian military drills that could extend into the Chernihiv and Kyiv regions.
Public opinion in Moscow largely aligns with the narratives promoted by pro-Kremlin media. Given that state-controlled television and newspapers remain the primary sources of information for most Russians, this is not surprising. One Moscow resident told Reuters that a ceasefire is not in Russia’s interest “given the advances Russian troops are making in Ukraine and the Kursk region.” This individual even suggested that Russia should aim to claim more Ukrainian territory, including Kharkiv, Odessa, and Kherson—cities not currently under Kremlin control.
Another woman expressed a desire for peace, framed around President Putin’s terms, stating, “Nothing depends on regular Russians, and the authorities know better.” Another individual poignantly shared, “We want everything to end quickly. We want peace and for no one to die. There have been so many deaths.”
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.
