Follow us on social

google cta
Diplomacy Watch Donald Trump Putin Zelensky

Diplomacy Watch: Putin lays out demands for ceasefire

US-Russia emerged from talks this week, but not everyone is hopeful

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support the U.S.-negotiated ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine under certain conditions.

Putin said that the Russians certainly support "the idea of a ceasefire," but "there are issues that we need to discuss, and I think that we need to talk about it with our American colleagues and partners and, perhaps, have a call with President Trump and discuss it with him.”

He added that the Russians “proceed from the assumption that the ceasefire should lead to lasting peace and remove the root causes of the crisis.”

The key conditions Putin outlined in a news conference late Thursday included a demand that foreign weapons assistance would not continue to flow to Ukraine during any 30 day ceasefire, that Russia would not let remaining Ukrainian soldiers to peacefully withdraw from Kursk but force them to surrender, and that Moscow must know who would be monitoring the ceasefire.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky retorted by saying, "Putin, of course, is afraid to tell President Trump directly that he wants to continue this war, wants to kill Ukrainians,” adding that Putin had set so many preconditions “that nothing will work out at all, or that it will not work out for as long as possible.”

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, was expected to conduct talks with Russian leadership later on Thursday. In a statement, President Trump was cautiously optimistic, saying that there were “good signals” coming out of Moscow. Later at a Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, he said there were "very serious discussions going on" and “we’d like to see a cease-fire from Russia.” He also said the U.S. had been discussing territorial issues with Ukraine.

“We’ve been discussing with Ukraine land and pieces of land that would be kept and lost, and all of the other elements of a final agreement,” he said, adding: “A lot of the details of a final agreement have actually been discussed.”

Putin’s statements come after Ukrainian leadership endorsed the Trump administration’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire. This support, as well as the resumption of military assistance and intelligence sharing to Kyiv, were secured during meetings between the American and Ukrainian leaders in Saudi Arabia earlier in the week.

The recent breakthrough comes after a public spat between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Trump and Vice President Vance at the White House last month. Following that breakdown in negotiations, President Trump paused military aid from the United States to Ukraine. That pause has since been lifted.

Ukrainian leadership previously said that a ceasefire would only be agreed upon if security guarantees were attached, but none were mentioned in a joint statement. Indeed, Zelenskyy said in a late-night address that guarantees would be agreed to at a later time.

Russia still holds roughly 20% of Ukraine and insists that it maintain control of a significant portion following a ceasefire. Additionally, Ukraine has lost much of its leverage via its partial occupation of Kursk, which began in August of 2024.

In other Ukraine War news this week:

Reuters reports that Ukraine launched its most significant drone attack on Moscow yet. The attack on Tuesday killed at least three civilians and wounded 17 others. Due to the attack, Moscow had to shut down all four of its airports.

A poll released by The Economist this week indicates that the Ukrainian public still trusts Zelenskyy and rejects most of Russia’s demands despite Mr. Zelenskyy’s recent spat with American leaders at the White House.

According to the poll, 72% of Ukrainians strongly support or somewhat approve of President Zelenskyy’s performance. The poll also indicated that the president would likely win a hypothetical election. Additionally, 74% of respondents agree that “Ukraine should continue fighting even if the United States withdraws all support.”

There were no State Department briefings this week



Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)
Diplomacy Watch: Zelenskyy-Trump Part II in DC?
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.