As the war rages on in Ukraine, the world watches with bated breath. This intensified focus follows the Kremlin’s recent announcement of a 30-hour Easter truce. Most see this as a major tactical play to make Ukraine the scapegoat. It is the source of questions about former President Donald Trump’s commitment to the issue. With the White House having long advanced Kremlin talking points, it’s worthwhile to realize the greater uncertainty this creates as to the U.S. role in any peace process.
On Sunday, a State Department spokesperson reiterated that the U.S. remains “committed to achieving a full and comprehensive ceasefire” in Ukraine. Kyiv has accused Moscow of constantly breaking the temporary ceasefire, making it senseless in the first place. Recent news accounts indicate that the Ukrainian military recorded hundreds of attacks by Russian forces throughout the ceasefire. Along the frontlines, they documented 2,935 attacks, including 1,882 instances of shelling and 96 ground assaults.
The Kremlin’s Easter truce seems calculated to achieve a number of parallel goals. First of all, it would give Moscow the chance to portray Ukraine as the impediment to peace. The Russian foreign ministry’s ambassador-at-large for crimes of the Kyiv regime, Rodion Miroshnik, stated on Kremlin-controlled television that “Ukraine, by not observing the Easter truce proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, has shown that it is not capable of ceasing fire even for 30 hours.”
This story is important at this moment in time. Second, Moscow is deeply worried about Trump’s freewheeling unpredictability and what choices he might make on Ukraine. If Trump should decide to give up on his peacemaking, this would make Moscow’s tactical and strategic calculations tougher. The Kremlin’s goal is to persuade Trump that any breakdown in the peace process will be Ukraine’s responsibility, not Russia’s. That’s an essential objective of theirs.
Trump so recently emerged from his golf course outside Washington. On Sunday, he went on Truth Social and defiantly demanded a ceasefire in all caps. “Hopefully Russia and Ukraine will make a deal this week. Both will then start to do big business with the United States of America, which is thriving, and make a fortune,” he wrote.
The dynamics surrounding the truce are complex. For Moscow, the ceasefire was never meant to be a game changer in the conflict. Rather, the move was interpreted as a goodwill gesture. It was perhaps meant to signal the Kremlin’s view that the Ukrainian leadership is incapable of interacting in good faith in any negotiations. This last strategy is part of a larger Kremlin effort to shape U.S. sentiments about the war.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sounded the alarm. He warned Washington would withdraw its attempts to mediate a resolution to the Ukrainian conflict within days if it saw no progress. This cheerful call to action belies the fact that this is often the tone that underlies diplomatic negotiations during hostilities.
