The Kremlin has yet to formally respond to the 30-day ceasefire proposal that arose from the US-Ukraine discussions in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.
However, preliminary reactions from media outlets aligned with the Kremlin indicate that endorsing an immediate truce under the present conditions contradicts Russia’s strategic goals.
Russian analysts seem to agree that this is not an ideal time for the Kremlin to cease its military actions, especially given its perceived advantages on the frontlines.
“Any agreements will be on our terms, not America’s,” asserted Russian senator Konstantin Kosachev the day following the talks in Jeddah.
State-controlled news agency RIA Novosti released an article yesterday titled “Ukraine Capitulated in Jeddah”, suggesting that Ukraine has surrendered to the US and its conditions for a ceasefire.
“Russia is being asked to accept a ceasefire while its adversary is faltering on the battlefield,” the journalist claimed.
Russian media have provided extensive coverage of Moscow’s achievements in pushing Ukrainian forces out of the Kursk region.
After the Russian military’s recapture of Sudzha, the Kremlin is depicted as holding the strongest bargaining position in any prospective peace negotiations.
As Moscow deliberated on the ceasefire proposal, President Vladimir Putin made a visit to Kursk for the first time since part of the region was captured by Ukrainian troops last year, according to Russian media reports.
Vladimir Putin during a visit to a command post in Kursk
“For Moscow, the outcomes of the Jeddah talks were disappointing, as the US has resumed military support for Ukraine,” the article in RIA Novosti continued.
The author concluded that “accepting the Jeddah proposal in its current form is off the table” due to unmet core demands from Russia.
This viewpoint prevails across Russian media reactions to the ceasefire proposal.
They consistently reference President Putin’s requirements articulated in his address to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in June 2024.
Mr. Putin insists on the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions within their internationally recognized borders.
Despite annexing these territories in 2022, Russia does not fully control any of them, and the international community has refused to acknowledge these annexations.
Moreover, Mr. Putin has demanded that Ukraine abandon its aspirations for NATO membership and that all Western sanctions be lifted.
Pro-Kremlin journalists assert that Mr. Putin will not retreat from these demands.
In a piece on another pro-Kremlin platform, Radio Sputnik, the negotiations between the Ukrainian and American delegations in Saudi Arabia were dismissed as “nothing more than the antics and posturing of political parrots, as well as an attempt to deceive Russia.”
Russia’s most widely read tabloid, Komsomolskaya Pravda, interviewed a professor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, who suggested that Russia’s progress in the Kursk region might have prompted Ukraine to accept the ceasefire proposal from Washington.
The professor speculated that, if Kyiv had rejected the ceasefire, the US might have taken action against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
This assertion, however, appears to be pure propaganda without any legal or diplomatic basis.
In the notable business outlet Kommersant, an analysis titled “Trump vs Europe” contended that Europe would be excluded from the negotiations.
The commentator argued that, for Mr. Trump and his team, European “globalists, Atlanticists, liberal values, and the export of democracy” are ideologically alien.
The Russian analyst also claimed to be aware of the terms discussed between the US and Russian presidents during their phone conversation: no NATO membership for Ukraine and a change in leadership in Kyiv.
One of Russia’s leading online news sources, Lenta.ru, published an article featuring war correspondents. “Shove it up your a**,” one correspondent was quoted as responding to the 30-day ceasefire proposal.
“Once again, they’re facilitating the flow of weapons and intelligence,” he remarked.
“Ukraine hoards all of this for a month. And then Russia gets blamed for the continuation of the war?”
Unlike Mr. Trump, Russia’s president is “in no hurry to conclude the war,” stated an article on the nationalist pro-Kremlin site Regnum.
The author further cautioned of potential additional Russian invasions into Ukrainian territory, asserting that Ukraine might not have sufficient military assistance by summer, when Russia-Belarus military drills occur, potentially affecting Ukraine’s Chernihiv and Kyiv regions.
Ukrainian soldiers practice using the US M2 60 mm mortar during firing training in the Donetsk region
Public opinion in Moscow largely aligns with the narratives promoted by pro-Kremlin media.
This is not surprising, considering that state-controlled television and newspapers remain primary sources of information for many Russians.
One Moscow resident told Reuters that a ceasefire is not in Russia’s interest “given the advances Russian troops are making in Ukraine and the Kursk region.”
He suggested that Russia should take more Ukrainian territory, including the cities of Kharkiv, Odessa, and Kherson—all of which are not currently under Kremlin control.
An AI generated image published in the State-owned news agency RIA Novosti
Another woman expressed a desire for peace on Russia’s terms in line with President Putin’s conditions.
“Nothing depends on regular Russians, and the authorities know better,” shared another Moscow resident.
“We want everything to end quickly. We want peace and for no one to die. There have been so many deaths.”
