For once, the US president and European leaders were on the same page.
Grasping for a familiar metaphor, a chorus of western heads of state declared this week that “the ball was in Russia’s court” after Ukraine agreed in talks with the US on Tuesday to an immediate 30-day ceasefire.
Rather than making a play, Vladimir Putin on Thursday picked up the ball, scrawled a fresh set of conditions across it, and lobbed it back – insisting the game could not move forward until the other side played by his rules.
“The idea itself is the right one, and we definitely support it,” Putin said, sitting alongside his longtime ally Alexander Lukashenko at a press conference in the Kremlin.
It was the “but” that followed that did all the heavy lifting.
“There are questions that we need to discuss, and I think we need to talk them through with our American colleagues and partner,” he added, suggesting that Ukraine should neither rearm nor mobilise and that western military aid to Kyiv be halted during the ceasefire.
Meanwhile, the message was clear: Russia had no intention of halting its own rearmament. Ukraine fears that Putin is preparing to do exactly what he accuses Kyiv of: exploiting the ceasefire to rearm and intensify his offensive if talks fall apart, as Russian forces press their advantage on the ground.
Over the past month, the geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically in favour of the Russian leader, as Donald Trump reshaped US foreign policy to Moscow’s advantage while straining relations with American allies.
But the introduction of a joint ceasefire proposal from the US and Ukraine turned the tables on Putin, forcing him to navigate the growing tension between his ambitions for a decisive victory in Ukraine and his efforts to maintain a close relationship with Trump.
By steering clear of an outright rejection of Trump’s proposal, Putin appeared to be buying time – walking a fine line between avoiding an open rebuff of Trump’s peace initiative and imposing his own stringent conditions, effectively prolonging the negotiations.
To his admirers, it was a masterclass in Putin’s diplomatic manoeuvring, flanked by the seasoned foreign policy veterans Sergei Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov – both with decades of experience.
“Putin used one of his favourite phrases … A firm ‘Yes, but … ’” quipped Andrei Kolesnikov, chief political reporter for Russia’s Kommersant newspaper and one of the few journalists with direct access to the president.
Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, predictably viewed Putin’s ambivalent response as yet another cynical trick, dismissing it as “manipulative”. Putin, he said, was “afraid to say directly to President Trump that he wants to continue this war”, accusing the Russian leader of “framing the idea of a ceasefire with such preconditions that nothing will work out at all, or for as long as possible”.
For longtime observers, it was a familiar Russian tactic. Moscow has long excelled at delaying negotiations, offering just enough hope of progress to keep talks alive while avoiding major concessions.
Putin’s remarks and Zelenskyy’s response have drawn a clear dividing line between the two sides’ positions.
Ukraine envisions a two-step approach: an immediate ceasefire followed by negotiations for a long-term settlement backed by western security guarantees.
Russia, on the other hand, insists that both issues must be settled within a single, comprehensive agreement, one that extends far beyond a simple ceasefire.
The contours of Russia’s demands were discussed behind closed doors on Thursday, as Putin held late-night talks with Steven Witkoff, the billionaire friend of Trump and chief Ukraine negotiator.
Moscow is expected to push for sweeping concessions, including the demilitarisation of Ukraine, an end to western military aid and guarantees that Kyiv will remain outside Nato.
Foreign troop deployments in Ukraine remain a non-starter for Moscow, which is also seeking international recognition of its claims to Crimea and the four Ukrainian regions annexed in 2022. Putin may further revive broader security demands from 2021, including limits on Nato’s military presence in countries that joined the alliance after 1997, when its expansion into former communist states began.
The Washington Post reported on Friday, citing classified US intelligence assessments, including one from earlier this month, that the Russian president had not “veered from his maximalist goal of dominating Ukraine”.
Trump, in his push for a deal to halt the war in Ukraine, started with the low-hanging fruit – pressuring Zelenskyy, whose military relies on American support.
But Trump had “few options to counter either a Russian rejection or prolonged feigned compliance”, said Alexander Baunov, a political analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
While Trump had pledged to intensify sanctions against Russia, the reality was that the US had little room left to escalate pressure – aside from increasing military support, which he had said he was reluctant to do.
Instead, Baunov argued, the most effective way to influence Russia would be the carrot rather than the stick – offering the prospect of sanctions relief and reintegration into western economies.
From the outset, Trump had dangled financial investment and a return to normal relations as incentives for Russia, or as his transactional administration put it, “the incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians” – both geopolitically and economically.
But there was also a far darker possibility for Ukraine. “Faced with the reality that he has no real leverage over Putin for a quick deal, Trump could once again align himself with the Russian leader – turning Putin’s demands into a joint agenda,” Baunov said.
