The Kremlin has again dismissed the prospect of a ceasefire in Ukraine, following recent comments by US President Donald Trump condemning the continued Russian bombardment of Ukrainian territory.
The response came through Dmitry Peskov, press secretary to President Vladimir Putin, who reiterated Moscow’s conditional approach to any cessation of hostilities.
Speaking after Trump expressed dissatisfaction with Russia’s ongoing military campaign in Ukraine, Peskov stated that President Putin was, in principle, interested in a ceasefire. However, he noted that “unresolved issues” remained, which in his view preclude the possibility of any immediate progress. Among the conditions mentioned were the alleged lack of control by the Ukrainian government over certain military formations, and the continued military assistance provided to Kyiv by Western allies.
Peskov implied that Ukraine is not acting independently, portraying it as a de facto proxy of Washington. He also echoed recent remarks by Putin, who has questioned the extent to which the Ukrainian leadership commands the country’s armed forces, particularly with reference to so-called nationalist units. This line has become a recurring narrative from the Kremlin, used to delegitimise the government in Kyiv and cast doubt on its cohesion.
Further, Peskov reiterated Moscow’s longstanding objections to the militarisation of Ukraine, listing this as another key obstacle to even a temporary truce. Russian officials have previously made clear that any suspension of hostilities would be contingent on halting military support to Kyiv and scaling back mobilisation efforts by the Ukrainian side.
This stance places Russia at odds with a recent proposal from the US President for a 30-day ceasefire. The Kremlin’s response suggests that it continues to link any potential ceasefire not to diplomatic grounds but to substantial security and political concessions from Ukraine and its international partners. Critics argue that these demands effectively lay the groundwork not for peace, but for strategic advantage ahead of a possible renewed offensive.
There is also concern in Western capitals that a ceasefire under such conditions would freeze the conflict in Russia’s favour, allowing it to regroup while denying Ukraine the means to defend itself. Russian military recruitment figures, reported to be at unprecedented levels this year, further reinforce suspicions that Moscow is using the ceasefire debate to buy time for a future escalation.
Although President Trump has publicly criticised Putin’s position, stating after a meeting with Finnish President Alexander Stubb that he was unhappy with Moscow’s approach to ceasefire negotiations, no formal dialogue has taken place between the two leaders since the proposal was floated. Reports suggest that Trump’s advisers have recommended against engaging directly with Putin until there is clear movement from the Russian side on the ceasefire terms.
Peskov’s latest remarks indicate that such movement is unlikely without broader geopolitical shifts. According to sources familiar with the matter, Russia continues to insist on significant Western concessions, including the lifting of sanctions and an end to weapons deliveries, before it considers any substantial change in posture.
European officials have privately ruled out the possibility of easing sanctions in the absence of a complete Russian withdrawal from occupied Ukrainian territories. They argue that any partial ceasefire that leaves Russian forces in place would merely entrench the current frontlines and facilitate further aggression.
Meanwhile, observers note that Russia may be banking on a decline in Western support for Ukraine over time. With oil prices falling in response to new US tariffs and growing concerns about the global economy, Moscow could be calculating that financial pressures in the United States and Europe will force a reduction in assistance to Kyiv. Some analysts view this as part of a war of attrition strategy aimed at outlasting Western resolve.
The current economic climate, shaped in part by the US administration’s protectionist trade policies, has already sparked debate within European governments about budget priorities and the sustainability of long-term aid commitments. Should economic instability worsen, the question of whether to maintain, reduce, or redirect funds currently allocated to Ukraine could become increasingly contentious.
Against this backdrop, strategic patience may be the Kremlin’s preferred course. By stalling negotiations and maintaining its military posture, Russia appears to be testing the limits of transatlantic unity. The eventual outcome could hinge less on battlefield developments than on the resilience of Western political and economic systems.
In the short term, the central issue remains whether President Trump will continue to press Putin for a ceasefire, or whether he will shift focus amid growing domestic and international pressures. If no progress is made, the likelihood increases that the conflict in Ukraine will become even more protracted, with diplomatic efforts sidelined in favour of further military confrontation.
Read also:
Trump’s Ceasefire Plans for Ukraine Stall Amid Russian Conditions
