The war between Russia and Ukraine has now lasted for over three years, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced.
On the 18th, U.S. President Donald Trump held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin for more than 90 minutes, discussing a potential ceasefire agreement.
However, while Putin agreed to limit attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure, he outright rejected the 30-day ceasefire proposal put forward by the U.S.
Putin set several preconditions for a broader ceasefire, including a complete halt to foreign military aid to Ukraine and the cessation of Kyiv’s military mobilization.
The Kremlin emphasized that any long-term truce must ensure Russia’s "legitimate security interests" and eliminate the "root causes of the crisis.
" Meanwhile, the White House statement revealed that Trump and Putin agreed to initiate negotiations on a "Black Sea maritime ceasefire, a comprehensive ceasefire, and permanent peace," with discussions set to begin immediately in the Middle East.
Despite Putin’s limited commitment, the White House underscored that improving U.S.-Russia relations could bring "enormous potential benefits," including major economic cooperation and geopolitical stability once peace is achieved.
However, concerns remain that Trump’s urgency to end the war may result in concessions at Ukraine's expense.
There is skepticism over whether Russia will honor any agreement made with Trump, leaving Kyiv vulnerable to future aggression.
Observers fear that Putin might leverage America's eagerness for a swift resolution to extract further concessions that could weaken Ukraine or compromise European security.
Russia’s strategic approach reflects its long history of using negotiations to buy time and consolidate territorial gains.
From the 2014 annexation of Crimea to the ongoing war, the Kremlin has consistently pursued a policy of incremental advances, often negotiating only when it suits its broader ambitions.
The latest developments raise questions about whether Washington’s diplomacy can truly secure lasting peace—or if it risks repeating past mistakes of underestimating Moscow’s long-term strategy.
Putin’s reluctance to commit to a broader ceasefire also mirrors historical instances where Russia employed "limited truces" as a means to regroup and strengthen its position.
Analysts recall that during the Soviet era, similar tactics were used in conflicts from Afghanistan to Eastern Europe.
This pattern suggests that any partial ceasefire should be approached with extreme caution, as it may serve as a strategic pause rather than a genuine step toward peace.
Given the stakes, the real question is whether the U.S. is willing to pressure its allies to maintain military support for Ukraine despite Moscow’s demands.
Historical precedent shows that yielding to Russian ultimatums has often led to prolonged instability rather than lasting peace.
Whether Trump can balance diplomatic pragmatism with strategic foresight remains an open debate.