When is the cessation of fire a real attempt to secure peace? And when is it just PR?
This is a question that has been asked very lately.
Most of all in connection with the President of Russia.
The short terminations turn into a lot of the Kremlin.
First, Vladimir Putin announced a 30-hour termination of hostilities in Easter, presenting it as a “humanitarian” gesture.
Now the Kremlin leader has announced three -day one -sided truce for early MayS It will continue from May 8 to May 10 to coincide with the events marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.
In a statement, the Kremlin said that in 72 hours all hostilities would cease. He quoted “humanitarian” considerations (again) and made it clear that Moscow expects Ukraine to follow the example.
In response to the proposal, Ukraine asked why Russia could not immediately be committed to ending the fire and urged a person to be applied for at least 30 days.
“If Russia really wants peace, it must immediately end the fire,” Foreign Minister Andri Sibiha said, adding, “Why should we wait until May 8?”
So, by the Russian president, who began a full -scale invasion in Ukraine more than three years ago, is it a sincere effort to end the fighting?
Or just the Kremlin public relations exercise to impress Donald Trump?
The Kremlin Critics will suspect PR.
During the extremely short so -called Easter termination of fire, Ukraine had accused Russian troops of breaking it repeatedly.
Moscow uses its 30-hour pause message to send a signal to the White House: that in this war, Russia is the peacemaker and Kiev aggressor. He accused Ukraine of ignoring what Moscow presents as an olive branch and for extending war.
Trump's latest comments suggest that the US president did not buy this.
In a publication on his social platform for the truth over the weekend, Trump wrote that “there is no reason” Putin shooting rockets in civilian areas, cities and cities (in Ukraine) in the last few days. “
“Makes me think,” he added, “that he may not want to stop the war, he just eavesdrop on me and should be considered differently through” banking “or” secondary sanctions? “Too many people die !!!”
Cue today's message about another Russian termination of fire. This one is a little longer: three days. And again, this statement of “humanitarian” concerns.
Another attempt to signal Washington that the Kremlin has only the best intentions? That Russia is really a good man in all this?
If so, it doesn't seem to have worked. Not right away. The White House press center Carolyn Levitt noted Moscow's proposal to suspend fire, but said: “The President (Donald Trump) made it clear that he wanted to see a constant fire first to stop the murder, stop bloodshed.
“He is increasingly carved than the leaders of both sides,” Levitt said.
This is an indication that the US president can lose patience Now with the Kremlin, although in recent months he has directed the bigger part of his public criticism of President Zelenski.
Last month, the Trump administration insisted on both Russia and Ukraine to agree to a 30-day overall unconditional termination of the fire. Ukraine had signed it. Russia did not.
Senior Russian officials use President Putin's three -day proposal to try to throw Ukraine into bad light.
“It is doubtful that (the president) Zelenski will support our president's decision and accept the truce,” Vyacheslav Volodin told the Russian Parliament's House of Russian Parliament.
It is hardly a encouraging sign, so soon after the announcement of another brief ceasefire.