Following nine hours of discussions in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, officials announced that Ukraine has accepted a U.S. proposal for a temporary ceasefire lasting 30 days, stating that “the ball is now in Russia’s court.”
While this announcement was presented as a significant move towards peace and represented a notable shift in the previously tense relations between Washington and Kyiv, Russia has yet to respond to the proposal and is awaiting further details from U.S. officials.
U.S. President Donald Trump is anticipated to have a conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the coming days, and Steve Witkoff, a special envoy from the Trump administration, is scheduled to visit Moscow this week.
Securing Russia’s agreement to a short-term truce, which Putin has previously opposed, poses a considerable challenge. Russia currently maintains an advantage on the battlefield, particularly in the Kursk region, where its forces are swiftly advancing against Ukrainian troops and reclaiming Russian territories.
U.S. and Ukrainian officials have not disclosed specifics regarding the ceasefire’s terms or its monitoring mechanisms. It remains uncertain how soon the ceasefire could be implemented if Russia consents to it.
“For a ceasefire to be sustainable, both parties will need to negotiate a comprehensive array of technical details,” remarked Walter Kemp, a senior strategy advisor at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
“However, a temporary halt in hostilities could pave the way for negotiations aimed at concluding the conflict.” Concurrently with the announcement of the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine, Washington confirmed the resumption of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. This represented a stark reversal from just a week prior, when a contentious encounter at the White House between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy strained the longstanding alliance between the two nations.
Much hinges on Russia’s reaction. However, the journey toward establishing a truce remains delicate, complicated, and influenced by political dynamics.
Kemp asserts that it is now essential for Washington to exert pressure on Moscow to compel Russian President Vladimir Putin to consent to an agreement.
Should he agree, the subsequent challenge will be to implement a ceasefire effectively and ensure its durability.
Conversely, if he declines, experts suggest that the U.S. may pivot towards smaller “confidence-building” measures aimed at fostering trust between the two parties.
“I believe it is more feasible to pursue some form of de-escalation measures rather than a full ceasefire,” Kemp remarked. “A complete cessation of hostilities is not a necessity,” he added. “Dialogue can occur even amidst ongoing conflict.”
Ukraine had previously proposed a partial ceasefire, which would entail a suspension of attacks from both maritime and aerial sources; however, U.S. officials advocated for a broader halt to hostilities along the entire front line.
While officials provided brief comments following the discussions, they did not clarify how a ceasefire, even a temporary one, would be enforced, who would oversee it, or whether a significant number of peacekeepers would need to be stationed along a front line that traverses heavily mined combat zones.
Kemp, originally from Canada and currently residing in Vienna, Austria, has been part of a collective of peacekeeping and mediation specialists who have convened regularly in Geneva since 2022 to strategize the logistics surrounding a potential ceasefire agreement and to establish the necessary groundwork for such a deal.
“The difficulty lies in delving into the specifics of what the ceasefire entails, how it operates, and how it will be executed,” Kemp stated.
“There is little value in having a ceasefire that is violated the very next day.”
Now, with the Trump administration in power and the fatigue from a conflict that has persisted for over three years, the desire for a truce has evolved.
Should Russia, which has declined to withdraw its forces and has not indicated a willingness to make concessions, reject the proposed agreement, Kupchan suggests that negotiators should aim for smaller agreements, such as a cessation of attacks on energy facilities or civilian infrastructure.
“I believe we will need to explore the situation cautiously,” Kupchan remarked.
“It is possible to establish a degree of trust on both sides before declaring that the situation is resolved and calm along the front.”