According to reports published by Bloomberg, the White House is seeking to broker a comprehensive ceasefire in the war between Russia and Ukraine ahead of the Easter holiday on 20 April.
However, it remains uncertain whether this target is realistic. Even sources within the administration of US President Donald Trump reportedly acknowledge that the timeline could change.
President Trump has publicly claimed that he is in control of the peace process and has positioned himself as the only figure capable of ending the conflict. Despite these assertions, both his actions and those of the Kremlin suggest a different dynamic is emerging—one in which Trump is being drawn into prolonged negotiations while hostilities on the ground continue.
So far, Trump has failed to reach an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin on a lasting ceasefire, despite two phone calls with the Russian leader. These conversations have been interpreted by analysts as a diplomatic gain for the Kremlin, breaking Putin’s prolonged isolation from the West. Meanwhile, the so-called “energy ceasefire” discussed during these talks has not materialised. Following the latest call, Putin has shown no signs of restraint, with continued strikes across multiple Ukrainian cities including Kropyvnytskyi, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, and Kyiv.
These developments indicate that the Kremlin may be using the negotiation window—particularly talks scheduled to begin in Saudi Arabia on Monday—as a strategic pause, not to stop the war, but to regroup. Sources suggest that Putin has no genuine intention of honouring any airspace ceasefire and is instead exploiting diplomatic efforts to further his military objectives.
The Kremlin’s public position continues to reflect this approach. Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov has stated that both Washington and Moscow must engage in “difficult work” to achieve tangible results. At the same time, Russia’s conditions for even a temporary 30-day ceasefire include demands such as a halt to Ukrainian mobilisation and an end to Western military assistance. Notably, Russia has not offered reciprocal measures, continuing to mobilise new troops and maintain full-scale operations in its military-industrial sector.
Simultaneously, Secretary of the Russian State Security Council, Sergei Shoigu has reportedly travelled to Pyongyang to negotiate further arms deliveries from North Korea. There is also speculation that Russian efforts may include deployment of North Korean military personnel to support operations in Ukraine.
This context suggests that a ceasefire conditioned on Ukraine ceasing mobilisation and losing access to Western arms would serve only to weaken Kyiv militarily, potentially paving the way for renewed Russian offensives and territorial gains. Analysts interpret this as part of Russia’s long-standing objective to undermine Ukrainian statehood.
Observers are now questioning whether President Trump understands the implications of such a negotiating stance and whether anyone in his advisory circle is willing—or able—to challenge it. Trump’s inner circle is said to include several individuals with favourable views towards Moscow and a desire to restore cordial ties with the Kremlin.
Despite the current White House maintaining its stance against halting military support and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, the outcomes of upcoming talks in Saudi Arabia remain uncertain. Russian negotiators are expected to include Grigory Karasin, a former deputy foreign minister, and General Sergey Beseda of the FSB, who previously oversaw operations in Ukraine. Reports suggest these representatives may pressure US officials to accept Russian conditions as the only means of achieving a temporary pause in fighting.
It is also unclear whether President Trump is willing to meet Putin while hostilities continue. Any such meeting would likely be viewed as a diplomatic success for Moscow, particularly if it takes place without a concurrent cessation of military activity. A handshake during ongoing combat could undermine the United States’ position and raise questions about the moral and strategic costs of engaging with the Kremlin under current conditions.
As the conflict persists, critics argue that Trump’s handling of the issue risks diminishing US influence while playing into Putin’s hands. Some voices in Washington have begun to question whether the current administration can accurately assess the strategic aims of the Kremlin. The wider concern is that a misreading of Putin’s intentions could lead to decisions with long-term geopolitical consequences.
Read also:
Trump Envoy’s Remarks Echo Russian Narratives on Ukraine Conflict
