The latest development in the Trump-Putin talks over Ukraine reveals just how tenuous and conditional any path toward peace remains. After much anticipation, Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed only to a limited pause ~ halting Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. His outright rejection of a full ceasefire proposal underscores both the complexity and the fragility of the negotiations now underway. While President Donald Trump portrays this as a significant breakthrough, the reality suggests otherwise: this is less a step toward lasting peace and more a tactical pause designed to serve Moscow’s interests. Mr Putin’s acceptance of an “energy ceasefire” comes with heavy strings attached. His demand that all foreign military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine end as a pre-condition for any comprehensive truce is not new ~ but it’s been reasserted with fresh urgency. For Kyiv and its European backers, this remains a non-starter.

Mr Putin’s conditions go far beyond the battlefield; they aim to isolate Ukraine strategically and leave it exposed. This dynamic reflects an enduring asymmetry in negotiations, where Moscow continues to set terms that benefit its military objectives. Mr Trump, for his part, has shifted from earlier insistence on an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire to settling for a partial one. In doing so, the US position has retreated from what was secured just a week ago when Wash – ing ton convinced Kyiv to agree to a full 30-day ceasefire proposal. That agreement now appears shelved in favour of Mr Putin’s narrower offer, casting doubt over Washington’s leverage and the coherence of its diplomatic strategy. Mr Trump’s framing of the call as “productive” masks the more unsettling reality: the US seems willing to accept incremental, symbolic gestures in exchange for broader concessions from Ukraine.

Advertisement

For Kyiv, the implications are troubling. President Volodymer Zelenskky has cautiously welcomed the idea of a ceasefire covering energy infrastructure but quickly pointed to on-going Russian drone attacks ~ including strikes on hospitals and civilian power supplies ~ as evidence of bad faith. Ukraine’s leadership sees Mr Putin’s move as a way to buy time, entrench his position, and extract further concessions without making meaningful compromises. The Kremlin’s narrative ~ that a “complex, stable, and longterm” settlement requires an end to Western support for Ukraine ~ lays bare Mr Putin’s intentions. European leaders, including Germany and the UK, have responded by reaffirming their commitment to Ukraine’s defence and calling for a full ceasefire. But the momentum of these negotiations remains uncertain.

Mr Trump’s apparent willingness to scale back support has emboldened Moscow, while Kyiv faces mounting pressure to make difficult decisions without guarantees of security. Ultimately, the fragile pause agreed upon in the Trump-Putin call risks becoming yet another chapter in a conflict defined by delayed resolutions and shifting red lines. It may offer a brief respite from attacks on critical infrastructure, but it falls far short of a durable peace. Whether this marks the start of genuine negotiations or just another geopolitical chess move by Moscow remains to be seen.