What are the chances of success for the ceasefire initiative in Ukraine?

In a surprising turn of events, on March 11, 2025, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire with Russia following peace talks with the United States in Saudi Arabia. As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year, this temporary halt in fighting represents an opportunity for de-escalation and diplomacy. In exchange for Ukraine’s participation, the United States lifted its suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing, which had been previously halted due to tensions between Washington and Kyiv. Consequently, questions arise about the motivations behind reaching this ceasefire and the determinants of its success; the ceasefire will come into effect immediately if Russia agrees. Therefore, all eyes are now on Russia: will it accept the agreement and truly lead to peace, or is it just a temporary step in a complex geopolitical game?

Multiple Motivations

From Ukraine’s desire to alleviate the burden of war on its people, as well as the United States’ aim to end the war due to its high cost on the American budget, the motivations for reaching this ceasefire can be summarized as follows:

1. Strategic pressure from the United States: The geopolitical interests of the United States, which heavily invested in supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russia, are driving forces behind the ceasefire; the suspension of American military and intelligence aid put Ukraine in a precarious position on the battlefield. This halt in aid directly affected Ukraine’s ability to implement effective defensive strategies and counter Russian advances. By facilitating this ceasefire and resuming aid, the United States exerted effective pressure on Ukraine to come to the negotiating table, hoping to achieve stability in the region and prevent further escalation.
2. Ukraine’s desire for continued American support: For Ukraine, the ceasefire offers crucial relief. The suspension of American support put immense pressure on Ukrainian forces, many of which relied on American intelligence to defend against Russian missile strikes and direct military attacks. By agreeing to the ceasefire, Ukraine gains a much-needed respite and ensures the immediate resumption of intelligence and military aid, which it desperately needs to continue its defensive efforts.
3. Increasing global pressure to end the war: Ukraine’s agreement to the ceasefire also came in response to global political pressure, particularly with international calls for a reduction in hostilities. Countries like China and members of the European Union have called for peace talks, creating a sense of urgency among global powers to take serious steps towards limiting the scope and impact of the war. The United States’ role as a mediator also allows it to enhance its diplomatic influence in the region, positioning itself as a force for peace.
4. Response to Trump’s geopolitical priorities: President Donald Trump has consistently prioritized ending the conflict in Ukraine during his election campaign, describing it as a major geopolitical goal of his administration. By facilitating a ceasefire agreement, the Trump administration may attempt to fulfill this commitment, solidifying its status as a peacemaker. This aligns with Trump’s broader foreign policy strategy of reducing American military intervention in foreign conflicts and shifting towards economic solutions, such as securing mineral investments in Ukraine.
5. Economic interests between the United States and Ukraine: The joint American-Ukrainian statement not only demonstrates Ukraine’s readiness to engage in talks that benefit its security but also highlights the agreement to finalize a rare minerals deal as soon as possible, reflecting the United States’ efforts to secure its economic interests.
6. Escalating human cost of the war: The devastating losses on both sides, particularly with ongoing attacks on civilians in Moscow and Ukraine, have added urgency to peace talks. President Donald Trump emphasized the importance of stopping the bloodshed, acknowledging that the ceasefire could be a crucial step towards halting the ongoing loss of life. The resumption of intelligence sharing and security assistance reflects the United States’ desire to mitigate the war’s devastating effects.

Key Determinants

Despite the multiple motivations for reaching this ceasefire, the success of the ceasefire depends on key factors that may hinder its success, including the following:

1. Moscow’s strategic considerations: Russian officials have indicated that any ceasefire agreement must be on their terms. Therefore, if the proposed ceasefire does not meet Russia’s strategic demands or ensure the safety of Russian forces, the Kremlin may continue to oppose the agreement. However, it should be noted that historically, Russia has been reluctant to join such ceasefires without obtaining additional concessions, such as easing sanctions or other geopolitical benefits. If Russia sees this ceasefire as an opportunity to reorganize its military ranks or achieve further gains, it may push for additional demands, undermining the fragile peace process.

In this context, Russian President Putin stated on March 13 that “a 30-day ceasefire would be good for Ukraine under current circumstances and due to its position on the ground,” adding: “It is in Ukraine’s interest to request a 30-day ceasefire, and we are open to this proposal, but what will we do about what is happening in Kursk… and any ceasefire in Ukraine must lead to a lasting peace… and I have spoken with (U.S. President) Trump about the proposal.”

2. Ability to provide monitoring and compliance mechanisms: Ukrainian President Zelensky emphasized the importance of effective monitoring of the ceasefire, given the challenges posed by small and deadly drones and the long front line that stretches for a thousand kilometers. Therefore, for the ceasefire to succeed, effective monitoring and verification mechanisms must be in place to ensure both sides’ compliance. However, in the case of Ukraine, effective international oversight, possibly by the United Nations or another neutral party, will be necessary to ensure both Ukraine and Russia adhere to the terms, particularly halting missile strikes, drone attacks, and bombings along the front lines.
3. Limits of domestic political support in Ukraine for the ceasefire: The level of political consensus within Ukraine will also determine the ceasefire’s resilience; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will face the challenge of maintaining support from major political factions and military leaders who may have differing views on the ceasefire’s terms. While the ceasefire brings immediate military relief, some factions within Ukraine may view it as a settlement that could undermine the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the long run. If internal divisions erupt, it could destabilize Ukraine’s stance and jeopardize the ceasefire’s success.
4. Role of influential international powers in pushing for the ceasefire’s success: Support and pressure from influential international actors, particularly the United States, will be crucial; while the United States lifted the suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing, the broader international community’s response – particularly European countries and NATO, as well as potential diplomatic support from other global powers like China – to the ceasefire’s terms will be a strong determinant. Continued diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia, as well as coordinated efforts to monitor the ceasefire’s implementation, will be critical in determining whether this temporary peace can transition into a more lasting agreement.
5. The ability of European countries to form a unified stance towards the ceasefire: As 440 members of the European Parliament issued a joint statement on March 12, condemning the United States for “blackmailing” Ukrainian leadership and forcing it to surrender by using military aid as leverage to agree to a 30-day ceasefire, this external pressure may undermine Ukraine’s independence in determining the terms and provisions of any ceasefire, potentially leading to resistance from Ukrainian leadership.

While the European Parliament expresses support for the ceasefire and increased sanctions, internal divisions within the European Union may complicate efforts to form a united front in negotiations. Countries with differing economic or geopolitical interests may not support the proposed ceasefire or the necessary sanctions to fully implement it.

In summary, the ceasefire agreement between Ukraine and Russia, facilitated by the United States, represents a significant, albeit fragile, development. While the ceasefire offers crucial military support to Ukraine and indicates the potential for de-escalation, its success depends on several factors, including Russia’s response, domestic political stability in Ukraine, and international support. However, geopolitical dynamics, particularly the impact of divisions within the United States and the European Union, will play a crucial role in shaping the future of the ceasefire. While the hope is for both parties to adhere to its terms and for global powers to continue exerting diplomatic and economic pressure, leading to a more sustainable peace, the fragility of this ceasefire suggests that future negotiations may face ongoing challenges, with the risk of the conflict reigniting if fundamental demands are not met.