Between Ceasefire and Capitulation: The Fragile Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian War

In the latest developments in the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has for the first time in years publicly expressed an openness to direct bilateral negotiations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a significant rhetorical shift in Russia’s diplomatic posture. The Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, clarified during a press briefing that Russia is prepared to consider Zelenskyy’s proposal for a mutual cessation of attacks on civilian infrastructure, which includes energy facilities, water systems, transportation networks, and communication nodes. This proposal was reiterated by Zelenskyy on Monday, where he emphasized Ukraine’s readiness to enter discussions aimed at halting hostilities against civilian targets. He stated Ukraine’s position as non-retaliatory in targeting such infrastructure and called for a “clear response” from Moscow. However, Peskov was quick to note that, despite the apparent openness to dialogue, no concrete plans or frameworks for direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow have yet materialized.

The Kremlin’s cautious engagement with Zelenskyy’s initiative hinges upon definitional ambiguities. Peskov, quoting Putin, stressed the difficulty in distinguishing between purely civilian and dual-use infrastructure, pointing out that facilities being used for military purposes—such as those allegedly hosting enemy combatants—may be deemed legitimate targets under Russian doctrine. This qualification shows the complications surrounding any potential ceasefire, as it leaves room for continued hostilities under the guise of targeting militarized civilian structures. Peskov characterized the issue as “complex” and in need of extensive discussion.

This tentative diplomatic movement coincides with continuing violence on the ground. Russian forces reportedly captured the village of Sukha Balka in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region, further consolidating Moscow’s gradual territorial gains in the east despite sustaining heavy casualties. Meanwhile, in the Kursk region, Russian forces reclaimed control over the historic St. Nicholas Belogorsky monastery in the village of Gornal. Russian sources claim the site had been used by Ukrainian troops as a military outpost, equipped with artillery and drones, though these reports remain unverified. Russia’s push to expel Ukrainian forces from Kursk—part of Ukraine’s brief incursion strategy initiated in August—has gained momentum in recent weeks, with Russian forces reportedly now advancing into Ukraine’s Sumy region as well.

On the humanitarian front, the toll of the conflict continues to mount. Over the past 24 hours, at least five Ukrainian civilians have been killed in Russian attacks. Among the victims were a 54-year-old woman and a 26-year-old man in Petropavlivka, Kharkiv region; a 24-year-old man killed by a Russian drone in Ivashky, also in Kharkiv; a civilian casualty in the Esman community in Sumy; and one death with seven injuries reported in Kherson after Russia targeted 36 settlements there. These attacks contradict the humanitarian gestures Moscow claims to support, such as the brief and largely ineffective Easter ceasefire announced by Putin last Saturday. That ceasefire, which was supposed to last 30 hours from Saturday evening to Sunday night, quickly unraveled as both Kyiv and Moscow accused each other of violations through continued shelling and drone strikes. The United States welcomed the ceasefire in principle and encouraged its extension, while Zelenskyy expressed willingness to honor a 30-day cessation of strikes. However, Putin refused to prolong the truce beyond Sunday, rendering the effort symbolic at best.

As diplomatic discussions edge forward, Ukraine is scheduled to engage in multilateral talks with representatives from the United Kingdom, France, and the United States in London on Wednesday. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly backed Ukraine’s demand for a complete ceasefire and proposed, in conjunction with France and a “coalition of the willing,” the formation of a reassurance force for Ukraine should a truce be achieved. Zelenskyy emphasized the centrality of these talks, stating that their “primary task” is to secure an “unconditional ceasefire,” which he described as the essential starting point for a durable peace.

Meanwhile, the United States’ stance remains more cautious. President Donald Trump, unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, has been directly engaged with Russian leadership. Trump has called the war a drain on U.S. resources and has signaled impatience with the current diplomatic inertia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently issued a warning that U.S. mediation efforts may be withdrawn within days if no tangible progress is observed. Leaks from the Trump administration suggest an inclination toward a peace framework heavily skewed in Russia’s favor. This draft agreement reportedly includes a cessation of hostilities along the existing 1,000km frontline, formal recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, a NATO membership veto for Ukraine, and the demilitarization of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant into a so-called “neutral” zone—concessions which Kyiv is unlikely to accept.

Amid these strategic and diplomatic maneuvers, military aggression has not subsided. Overnight, Russia launched a massive drone offensive against Odesa, a key Ukrainian port city on the Black Sea. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russia deployed 54 drones in total. Of these, 38 were intercepted, while 16 failed to reach their targets, likely due to Ukraine’s electronic countermeasures. Nevertheless, three civilians were injured in the attack, and several apartment buildings sustained damage. According to Odesa’s mayor, Hennadiy Trukhanov, the drones targeted a densely populated residential district, adding yet another layer of civilian suffering to an already catastrophic conflict.

Putin’s professed readiness to talk peace, then, must be read in light of continued military aggression, persistent occupation of Ukrainian territories, and a negotiating framework that leaves little room for Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia continues to demand that Ukraine cede all annexed territories and embrace permanent neutrality—terms that Kyiv views as tantamount to capitulation. These conflicting demands show the deep chasm separating both sides. The question now looming over the London talks is whether any common ground can be found that would not constitute, from Ukraine’s perspective, a de facto surrender, or from Russia’s, a retreat from its maximalist wartime ambitions.