Will Ukraine’s acceptance of a ceasefire lead to the end of the war with Russia?

On March 11, 2025, Ukraine announced its agreement to a 30-day ceasefire in its ongoing war with Russia, following negotiations hosted by the Saudi city of Jeddah between senior American and Ukrainian officials. These talks resulted in a joint statement between the United States and Ukraine, in which the latter expressed its readiness for an immediate 30-day ceasefire, while Washington committed to lifting restrictions on its military aid to Kyiv and resuming intelligence information exchange. If Russia agrees to this ceasefire, it would mark the first ceasefire in the Russo-Ukrainian war since its outbreak in February 2022.

Fundamental Shifts:

The recent American-Ukrainian understandings in Jeddah marked a fundamental shift in the relationship between the two countries, especially after the tensions that followed the tense White House meeting between Presidents Donald Trump of the United States and Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at the end of February 2025. These understandings are expected to have significant implications for the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war. The contours of this shift can be outlined as follows:

1. Jeddah Meetings: In recent days, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia hosted American-Ukrainian talks, which began in Jeddah on March 11, 2025, attended by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan and National Security Adviser Minister Musaed al-Aiban. The negotiations included the U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. On the other side, the Ukrainian delegation was led by the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office, Andriy Yermak, his deputy Pavlo Balisa, Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha, and Defense Minister Rustem Umerov. American and Ukrainian officials revealed that the negotiations held in Saudi Arabia led to positive results and numerous understandings between the two countries, which could have significant repercussions on the course of the Russo-Ukrainian war.

U.S. Secretary of State, before arriving in Jeddah, indicated that Washington’s primary goal from these discussions was to ascertain Kyiv’s readiness to take serious actions to end the ongoing war, similar to the actions Russia had shown readiness to take.

2. Kyiv’s Agreement to the Ceasefire: Following the Jeddah meetings, which lasted eight hours, Washington and Kyiv issued a joint statement in which Ukraine announced its readiness to accept a 30-day ceasefire in its ongoing war with Russia, stating that this ceasefire could pave the way for a comprehensive agreement with Moscow. Meanwhile, the United States announced that it would lift the restrictions on its military aid to Ukraine and end its previous suspension of intelligence information exchange with Kyiv.

Under the proposed ceasefire, the cessation of fire is expected not only at sea and in the air but also along the entire frontline. This ceasefire would also allow for the exchange of prisoners and the taking of humanitarian steps.

It is worth noting that these joint understandings between the United States and Ukraine came about two weeks after the severe disagreements that characterized the relationship between the two countries during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington, which was followed by the White House’s announcement of the suspension of aid to Kyiv and the suspension of intelligence information exchange, despite objections from the United States’ European allies.

3. Ambiguous Russian Stance: Russian President Vladimir Putin, commenting on Kyiv’s agreement to a ceasefire, expressed his country’s support for the ceasefire, but he stated that there are “minor disagreements” and “serious questions” still pending and needing further communication with the Americans, which indicates some ambiguity in the Russian stance on the ceasefire. Trump stated that he is pleased to communicate with Putin urgently, expressing his hope for Moscow’s acceptance of this ceasefire, which would be the first of its kind since the outbreak of this war at the beginning of 2022. It is also expected that Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, will travel to Russia in the coming days to discuss the ceasefire with Kremlin officials. Additionally, U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz will meet with his Russian counterpart to discuss the American proposal.

However, many estimates suggest that Putin will not risk deteriorating his relationship with the new U.S. administration under President Trump; therefore, it is expected that Moscow will accept this proposed American ceasefire, especially since some had considered Russia’s recent attacks as a response to the attacks launched by Ukraine against Russia a day before the Jeddah talks, in the largest drone attack Kyiv has launched on Moscow since the start of the war, in an attempt to pressure Russia and demonstrate its ability to deliver effective strikes against it. On the other hand, Moscow had preempted the Ukrainian attacks with other attacks against Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region in western Russia, as part of its efforts to expel Ukrainian forces from this area; thus, it seems that both sides are seeking to achieve some field gains before implementing the proposed ceasefire, to strengthen their negotiating position in any future discussions.

4. Broad International Support: The proposed ceasefire to halt the fighting in the Russo-Ukrainian war has received broad international support. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his country’s welcome of this ceasefire, suggesting it could be a turning point in the Russo-Ukrainian war. French President Emmanuel Macron praised the progress made in the Jeddah talks but emphasized the need for Kyiv to have strong security guarantees as part of any potential ceasefire to halt the fighting. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also praised the outcomes of the Jeddah talks between the United States and Ukraine, as did the European Union and several other European countries.

Kyiv’s Motivations:

Estimates have varied regarding Ukraine’s motivations for accepting the ceasefire in its ongoing war with Russia, and these motivations can be explained as follows:

1. American Pressure: Some estimates have linked the current shift in the Ukrainian stance to American pressure, especially after the United States announced the suspension of its aid to Ukraine, including the halt of military radar and ammunition deliveries, as well as the suspension of intelligence information exchange. This followed the disagreements between Trump and Zelensky at their White House meeting. Some estimates even suggested that the United States might push for support of presidential elections in Ukraine to elect new leadership to lead peace negotiations with Russia.

This proposition aligns with the recent televised statements by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he expressed gratitude to the U.S. President, in a stance considered by some estimates as an implicit apology to Washington and his acceptance of the American proposal for a ceasefire. Some Western reports indicated that Kyiv had recently resorted to repeatedly praising Trump to avoid having a U.S. peace plan imposed on it, which was reflected in the statements by the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office, Andriy Yermak, who praised the strong U.S. leadership.

It is worth noting that the Deputy Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office, Pavlo Balisa, had hinted that the U.S. offer during the Jeddah talks to resume military and intelligence aid led to Ukraine’s acceptance of the ceasefire proposal, implicitly indicating Washington’s pressure using the military aid card to push Kyiv to accept the ceasefire.

Similarly, the recent understandings between the United States and Ukraine during the Jeddah talks resulted in agreements between the two sides regarding the minerals deal proposed earlier by the U.S. President, under which Washington would receive a 50% share of the proceeds from the sale of Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth in exchange for the aid provided by the United States to Ukraine since the start of its war with Russia. In return, Trump hinted that Kyiv would receive security guarantees by linking U.S. economic interests to Ukraine’s security. In this context, the joint U.S.-Ukrainian statement indicated that the Ukrainian President would sign a comprehensive agreement with the United States in the coming period regarding the development of Kyiv’s vital mineral resources.

2. British and French Consultations: Some Western reports revealed that Ukraine’s current stance is linked to consultations provided by Britain and France to Kyiv’s leadership to avoid escalating tensions with the United States. These reports suggested that London and Paris had proposed that Kyiv offer Washington a proposal regarding the ceasefire and cessation of hostilities. This is particularly relevant since French President Emmanuel Macron had proposed a one-month ceasefire in the Russo-Ukrainian war at the beginning of March 2025, a proposal that received support from London at the time.

This aligns with the visit by British Prime Minister’s Adviser Jonathan Powell to Kyiv a few days before the Jeddah meetings, as well as the ongoing consultations between the Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office and France and Britain, as part of joint efforts to clarify a joint peace plan. Paris and London’s advice to Kyiv regarding this ceasefire may be attributed to the current reluctance of European powers to bear the cost of the Ukrainian war alone if the United States were to stop supporting Ukraine.

3. Field Advances by Russian Forces: The Jeddah talks hosted by Saudi Arabia between the United States and Ukraine came at a crucial time for the ongoing war in Ukraine, as Russian forces continue to make field advances on various fronts, particularly in the Kursk region in western Russia, an area where Ukraine had made a surprise incursion in August 2024. Amidst the ongoing Russian advances, Moscow threatens to undermine Kyiv’s only current negotiating card.
4. Declining Confidence in European Support: Despite Ukraine’s insistence on Europe’s participation in any future peace process, Kyiv seems to have come to the realization that European powers alone will not be able to provide sufficient support if Washington were to stop providing aid to Ukraine. This may have been reflected in the tensions that characterized the relationship between Washington and its European allies, as well as the United States’ exclusion of Europe from its talks with Ukraine. Despite the emergency meetings held by European leaders, they have not led to a decisive united stance to support Kyiv, even amidst discussions about European efforts to form a peacekeeping force in Ukraine, although implementing this would also require American support.

It is worth noting that the weakness of European support for Ukraine is clearly evident after the cessation of American intelligence information led to significant losses for Ukrainian forces on the battlefronts, especially in the Russian Kursk region.

5. Active Saudi Mediation: Some estimates linked the shift in the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship to the mediation efforts being made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in this context. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman held official talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a day before the American-Ukrainian talks in Jeddah. On the same day, the Crown Prince held other talks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in light of the role played by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in hosting the talks related to resolving the Ukrainian war. In this context, Ukrainian sources revealed that Zelensky discussed with the Saudi Crown Prince the contours of a possible Saudi mediation, targeting the release of prisoners and the return of children whom Kyiv accused Moscow of kidnapping.

Important Implications:

The fundamental shifts resulting from the Jeddah talks between American and Ukrainian officials reflect several important implications, which can be outlined as follows:

1. Temporary Ceasefire Capable of Extension: Despite the proposed ceasefire not yet being implemented and the uncertainty surrounding Russia’s stance towards it, it remains, upon implementation, merely a temporary ceasefire that could pave the way for a comprehensive peace agreement, especially since it would be the first cessation of hostilities between the two sides since the start of the war. Therefore, many are counting on this ceasefire, if accepted by the parties, to begin comprehensive negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv to reach a permanent peace agreement. This aligns with the commitments of the United States and Ukraine to name their negotiating teams in the coming days, paving the way for the start of comprehensive negotiations.
2. Anticipated Minerals Deal between Kyiv and Washington: Some American reports indicated that the coming period is expected to witness the signing of a minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine. President Trump has long expressed his desire to secure American access to Kyiv’s reserves of vital minerals such as uranium, lithium, and titanium. This deal was expected to be signed during Zelensky’s visit to Washington two weeks ago, but the public dispute with Trump and his deputy, J.D. Vance, prevented its signing. It seems that the recent understandings between the two countries in Jeddah will pave the way for the signing of the deal, especially after Trump announced that he would invite Zelensky to return to the White House in the coming period to continue consultations.
3. Possible Ukrainian Concessions: It is expected that the anticipated negotiations led by the United States to end the Russo-Ukrainian war will involve many concessions that Kyiv may have to make to achieve peace. This was reflected in the statements by U.S. Secretary of State Rubio, who indicated that Ukraine would need to make concessions, including territorial concessions. Although this was not discussed during the recent Jeddah talks, this point will be crucial in any future negotiations aimed at a permanent resolution of the crisis.

According to estimates by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukraine’s territory, through its control of approximately 99% of Luhansk, 70% of Donetsk, and 75% of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, and Moscow seeks to consolidate its full control over these four regions.

4. Absence of Security Guarantees for Kyiv: The current U.S. administration insists on not committing to any significant and binding security guarantees for Ukraine, except for those that may be included in the minerals deal. The Trump administration adopts a clear approach in this regard, stating that the security mission in Ukraine is primarily the responsibility of European powers, not the United States. So far, there has been no shift in the U.S. stance on this central issue. This was reflected in the absence of any mention of security guarantees in the joint U.S.-Ukrainian statement, an issue that French President Macron warned about, noting Kyiv’s need for strong security guarantees, while the Ukrainian President indicated that the agreement on these guarantees would be made at a later time.
5. European Efforts to Send Peacekeeping Forces to Ukraine: While Ukraine seeks greater European involvement in any future negotiations with Russia, the U.S. stance on Brussels’ participation remains unclear at this time. At the same time, Britain and France are leading European efforts to enhance the European role in the Ukrainian crisis and its resolution paths, by rallying European powers interested in supporting the deployment of a European peacekeeping force to Kyiv to maintain a permanent ceasefire. While the United States has expressed its reluctance to send any U.S. forces to the ground in Ukraine, Brussels is trying to convince Kyiv of the centrality of this force’s role in preventing any Russian attack during the ceasefire period. However, this step is not expected to be accepted by Russia, even if European powers provide guarantees that these forces will not pose a threat to Moscow; therefore, the European role in the anticipated future negotiations between Russia and Ukraine remains unclear, especially in light of Washington’s lack of enthusiasm for Europe’s involvement in these negotiations.

Possible Paths:

In light of Ukraine’s new stance resulting from the Jeddah talks, there are three main paths that reflect the future of the possible ceasefire that the Russo-Ukrainian war may witness in the coming period, and these paths can be outlined as follows:

1. Moscow’s Acceptance of the Ceasefire and Paving the Way for a Comprehensive Peace Agreement: This is the most optimistic path, assuming that Russia announces its acceptance of the American initiative and a 30-day ceasefire, after which comprehensive negotiations would begin under American sponsorship, which could ultimately lead to a sustainable agreement ending the Russo-Ukrainian war. Although this path seems overly optimistic, it is not entirely ruled out, especially in light of U.S. President Trump’s desire to reach a solution that completely ends the Russo-Ukrainian war, even if it means pressuring Ukraine to make further concessions to Russia.

Given Trump’s announcement that Kyiv’s accession to NATO remains a remote scenario, his refusal to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, and the talk of American pressure that pushed Ukraine to accept the ceasefire proposal, it cannot be ruled out that American pressure could succeed in convincing Kyiv to make the concessions related to the four regions that Russia seeks to fully annex, as well as ensuring Ukraine’s neutrality. However, the likelihood of this path remains contingent on the possible agreements between the United States and Russia, and the unknown concessions that Moscow could make.

2. Rapid Collapse of the Ceasefire After Russia’s Acceptance: According to this path, it is expected that Russia will announce its acceptance of the American proposal for a ceasefire, but this ceasefire will collapse quickly, with each side blaming the other for its collapse, which will complicate the situation further.

This aligns with European concerns about the possibility of Russia not adhering to the 30-day ceasefire. In this context, the former head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service, Sir Alex Younger, indicated that Moscow might announce its acceptance of the 30-day ceasefire but then deliberately set unfeasible demands, which would cast significant doubt on the continuation of the ceasefire and hinder progress towards a comprehensive settlement. According to Younger, Moscow might demand that Ukraine be a neutral and demilitarized state. Similarly, the former British ambassador to Moscow, Sir Laurie Bristow, suggested that Russia might accept the ceasefire while continuing non-military actions to improve its field position, not ruling out the possibility of provocative actions to blame Kyiv for any violation of the ceasefire.

3. Russia’s Rejection of the Temporary Ceasefire: A report published by the British newspaper The Telegraph indicated that the probability of Russia accepting the ceasefire proposed by the United States is still 50%, amid Russia’s insistence on its demands related to the four eastern regions, Ukraine’s neutrality, and Moscow’s rejection of the idea of a temporary ceasefire, preferring instead a comprehensive and sustainable agreement. This aligns with another report published by the British newspaper The Independent, which predicted Russia’s rejection of the American proposal for a ceasefire, especially in light of the current field advances by Russian forces, indicating that Russia might view this ceasefire as an American trap.

Despite this, Russian President Putin’s cautious approach so far regarding his country’s stance on the ceasefire proposed by the United States reflects his desire to avoid hindering efforts to improve U.S.-Russian relations; therefore, Putin might avoid outright rejection of the American proposal for a ceasefire and instead work to link it to specific conditions to ensure Russian interests, which could prevent the implementation of the ceasefire.

While the third path seems the least likely, the second path remains the most probable at this time, with the possibility of the first path also remaining viable. However, overall, it is unlikely that Russia will outright reject the American proposal for a ceasefire, but at the same time, it is not expected that Putin will agree to implement the ceasefire as long as Ukrainian forces remain in the Russian Kursk region; therefore, Putin might link Russia’s acceptance of the ceasefire to the withdrawal of the remaining Ukrainian forces in Kursk, or intensify Russian attacks in that region to achieve a decisive victory that ends any Ukrainian presence inside Russia before any announcement of Russian acceptance of a ceasefire.

In conclusion, the recent Jeddah talks have reinvigorated negotiations for the Russo-Ukrainian war, and Ukraine’s decision to accept the ceasefire marks a fundamental shift in the stance of Ukrainian President Zelensky, who had long opposed this idea without linking it to specific arrangements for monitoring, implementation, and obtaining security guarantees to deter any future Russian attack. However, it seems that Zelensky accepted the ceasefire proposed by Washington without obtaining the conditions he had previously set, under pressure from the Trump administration.

It is expected that Russia will accept the ceasefire to show respect for the peaceful path in resolving the crisis, while maintaining current relations with the new U.S. administration and preventing Kyiv from exploiting the situation if Moscow were to reject the ceasefire and demand more sanctions and American pressure on Russia. However, the future of adherence to the ceasefire and the success of subsequent negotiations in reaching a comprehensive agreement to end the Russo-Ukrainian war remains uncertain amidst the complexities associated with this war and the involvement of the parties, both directly and indirectly.