It would appear that since Trump’s inauguration we have seen naught but theatre and narrative peddling from the west.
Following ‘negotiations’ between the USA and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia we are now told that the ‘ball is in Russia’s court’ – this phrase uttered in concert from a variety of western sources (always a tell). And why? Because Ukraine has acquiesced to her master’s insistence upon a ’30-day, rolling ceasefire.’
The US administration has openly called this conflict a ‘proxy war’ between the US and Russia. The shade this casts on the role of Ukraine and Zelenskyy is clear.
There have been a number of ceasefire agreements between Ukraine and Russia, all following serious defeats suffered by Ukrainian forces; from the Ilovaisk encirclement in 2014 which led to Minsk One, the Debaltsevo cauldron in 2015 which led to Minsk Two, to the Istanbul ‘agreement’ in 2022 prefaced by the presence of Russian Armed Forces outside Kiev.
And now we have the Ukrainian collapse of their ‘Kursk salient’ with horrific loss in men and matĂ©riel and the loss of the town of Sudzha… which directly prefaces the new ‘ceasefire’ narrative. Little is being reported by western media outlets on this ongoing rout of the AFU though an up-to-date account can be found below.
Both 2014 and 2015 Minsk ceasefire agreements, monitored by the OCSE, were continually – and deliberately – broken by the Ukrainians, meaning that full settlement negotiations were never able to progress.
What did progress – as later admitted by Poroshenko, Merkel and Hollande – were the rearming, reorganisation and retraining of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The same process (of rearmament and conflict preparation by western powers) took place after Istanbul in 2022.
So what trust or faith can the Russians have regarding this current March 2025 ceasefire offer, made under similar cause and for the same ultimate purpose; bearing in mind that the US immediately resumed the supply of lethal and intelligence aid upon the mere declaration that Ukraine would agree to such a ceasefire, thus signalling intent and direct involvement in the outcome.
The US is thus now merely assuming the prior Minsk positions of Germany and France. Nothing has changed. The narrative and proxy war continues with no true efforts made by the west to create the conditions for a lasting peace founded upon solving the root causes of the conflict.
And what of Russia? What are their requirements?
Therefore, following the likely rejection of such ‘ceasefire’ terms by Russia, the next phase of the proxy war will begin with the introduction of yet more sanctions upon Russia and US/NATO/EU/UK efforts to undermine BRICS.
The project to ‘Extend Russia’ (as detailed in the 2009 RAND Corporation Policy Document, below) will continue.
How can Russia avoid this rusty iron trap?
Perhaps by agreeing to the ceasefire on condition that Ukraine withdraws from the territory within the full provincial (oblast) boundaries of Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, (considered as Russian territory under Russian law) and hold presidential elections within the first 30 days.
Thus placing the ball firmly back across the net into the Ukrainian court.
Contrasted to…
Ukraine is in no military position to dictate such ‘red lines.’ Until this military reality forms the basis for US/NATO/UK/EU/Ukrainian negotiations, there can be no other result than a continuation of military operation until Ukraine capitulates and surrenders… and the losing side does not dictate terms to the victor.
Whatever her response in the coming days, Russia will be painted as the aggressor with no intent towards a peaceful resolution; it is inevitable.
However, at least it will ensure her ability to pursue a military victory in Ukraine; also inevitable.