The Phony Ceasefire

Knowing well in advance that Russia would reject it, the U.S. and Ukraine announced with fanfare that its ceasefire deal was in “Russia’s court” in what was an exercise of pure public relations, writes Joe Lauria.

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News

Nothing could have been clearer than Russia’s repeated conditions for a permanent end of the war, rather than a temporary ceasefire: Ukraine’s neutrality, its demilitarization and denazification, the inclusion of four Russian-speaking oblasts into the Russian Federation and treaties establishing a new security architecture in Europe.

Equally clear was Ukraine’s utter rejection of these conditions, demanding instead the return of every inch of its territory, including Crimea, and Ukraine’s membership in NATO.

It is the reason the two sides are still fighting a war. It is a war, however, that Ukraine is badly losing.  Obscuring that fact is an important aim of Ukraine and its European allies to keep their publics onside. 

But it isn’t only their publics that need convincing to continue supporting Ukraine, but the president of the United States too. 

After the Oval Office dustup, in which Donald Trump and J.D. Vance laid it on the line to Zelensky in public, the Europeans held two summits. At both they made loud noises about continuing to support Zelensky, but also made clear they couldn’t do it without the United States.

Much as they loathe him, Zelensky and the European leaders need Donald Trump. So they set Zelensky up to writing a letter sucking up to Trump, a man clearly susceptible to flattery.

Very likely also influenced by his Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, both of whom had previously expressed neocon support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia, Trump was apparently turned around, convinced to propose the 30-day ceasefire.

Trump then somehow got the notion that Vladimir Putin, despite his oft repeated conditions for ending the war, would yield to pressure. It could be Trump thinks he is a neutral mediator who needs to bully both sides to force them to do a deal. 

So after the ceasefire was floated, Trump resumed arms and intelligence flows to Ukraine, new sanctions on Russia were threatened and Ukraine fired 350 drones at residential areas of Moscow just as Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff was arriving in Moscow to discuss the ceasefire.

Like Casting a Lone Veto

All this was designed to push Putin to accept it or appear like a man guilty of rejecting peace.  If U.S. arms, intelligence and sanctions had not deterred Putin before, why would it now?

Putin saw this as the public relations exercise that it is and treated it as such. He responded with public relations of his own. 

Instead of firmly saying the expected, “No,” he said, “Yes,” followed by “nuances,” such as who would monitor such a ceasefire along a 2,000-kilometer front?

He said such a ceasefire could not begin as occupying Ukrainian troops were encircled on Russian territory; and, crucially, that a 30-day ceasefire — with no Ukrainian rearmament — could only mark the start of talks for a permanent settlement.  Putin exposed the motive to give Ukrainian troops on the run a chance to regroup.

Just as designed, Zelensky and European leaders blasted Putin for being a man who loves war, and hates peace.

At the U.N. Security Council, which I covered as a correspondent for a quarter of a century, I often saw countries introduce resolutions for a vote even though they were certain one of the five permanent members would veto it.

Diplomats explained that this was done on purpose to force the arm of that nation’s ambassador to be the lone one raised in opposition to the measure for all the world to see, causing it maximum public embarrassment. 

That is precisely the exercise we have seen with this phony ceasefire proposal. The Europeans and the Ukrainians are trying to milk it for all it’s worth.  Zelensky did a selfie video to call Putin a “manipulator” of world leaders.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “The Kremlin’s complete disregard for President Trump’s cease-fire proposal only serves to demonstrate that Putin is not serious about peace.” 

Starmer deployed the scare tactic that Putin is bent on European conquest, saying: “Russia’s appetite for conflict and chaos undermines our security back here in the United Kingdom.” He even tried to blame his political difficulties at home on Russia for “driving up energy costs.”

Meanwhile Starmer says a European peacekeeping force is moving to “operational phase” ahead of a Thursday meeting of European leaders.  Only with a ceasefire and Russia’s consent could such a force be deemed “peacekeepers” however. 

European leaders, who’ve staked their reputations on not losing in Ukraine, can apparently see no other way than to scaremonger a Russian threat and meet it by unnecessarily militarizing the continent. They need their publics to support this. 

In the end, the “ceasefire” gambit may indeed create more public sympathy for Ukraine and more irrational fear of Russia. But the big question is whether it will harden Trump against Russia by continuing arms shipments and intelligence and perhaps levelling new sanctions against Moscow. 

All that would do, however, is prolong the death and destruction. Without NATO’s direct participation in the war against Russia, which would risk nuclear annihilation, the outcome of the war is certain.  Because of that, Trump could resume pressure on Zelensky to essentially give up instead.

The ball is now in Trump’s court.  On Sunday he told reporters he would be discussing land and control of powet plants in telephone call with Putin scheduled for Tuesday. “We want to see if we can bring that war to an end,” he said. “Maybe we can. Maybe we can’t, but I think we have a very good chance.” 

The course of this three-year conflict since Russia’s intervention makes clear that the longer Ukraine tries to fight, the worse deal it will get, no matter how many public relations points it might win along the way.  

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.