Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has endorsed U.S. President Donald Trump's call for a ceasefire along current front lines, urging both sides to halt advances and negotiate peace. While Zelensky's support marks a diplomatic shift, skepticism remains about Russia's willingness to agree without territorial concessions, posing significant challenges to achieving a lasting truce.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly backed U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent call for an immediate ceasefire along existing front lines. Speaking to reporters in Washington, Zelensky said that both sides must stop advancing where they stand, and then negotiate the next steps toward peace. He told reporters, “We have to stop where we are. The president is right. Yes, both sides have to stop.”
Earlier that day, Trump had posted on his social media platform that he had urged both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelensky to halt the fighting, stop more bloodshed, and “make a DEAL.” He framed the ceasefire as a way for both sides to claim a form of victory, leaving history to judge.
Zelensky visited the White House after a talk between Trump and Putin, during which the two leaders discussed the possibility of a truce. Zelensky’s public embrace of the idea marks a shift toward more visible diplomacy, though many observers remain skeptical about Russia’s willingness to accept a freeze without demanding territorial concessions.
Russia has made clear that for any ceasefire to work it must include major conditions. Moscow insists Ukraine must withdraw from occupied Russian territories, formally recognize the new borders Russia claims, and halt Western military support to Kyiv. In effect, the Kremlin demands political concessions before any military quiet can begin.
Putin’s administration has repeatedly stated that Ukraine’s territorial claims must not undermine Russia’s “core interests,” and any ceasefire must reflect the ground realities of Russia’s control in contested regions. Some Russian voices argue that Ukraine must accept a ceasefire only on terms favorable to Moscow, not as a gesture of goodwill.
Observers note that while Zelensky’s call is bold, the real challenge lies in convincing Russia and its backers to agree to terms that do not weaken Russia’s position. Putin has long signaled that he views Ukraine as a buffer zone and a sphere of influence, and any ceasefire that leaves Kyiv with territory held in 2025 or earlier may be unacceptable to Moscow.
A ceasefire along current lines carries both opportunities and dangers. On one hand, it could temporarily reduce civilian casualties, ease humanitarian suffering, and allow negotiations to take place under less pressure.
But on the other hand, freezing the war where it is may codify territorial gains made by Russia in prior years. It may also freeze Ukraine in a permanently weakened security posture. Critics argue that without strong guarantees and enforcement mechanisms, such a ceasefire might become a strategic pause that favors Russia.
In that scenario, Kyiv would be pressured to accept a less favorable deal. Western military aid could be halted or reduced under the logic that a truce is in place. Russia could use the pause to strengthen defensive positions, fortify gains, or reorganize for future offensives.
Some analysts suspect that Western powers are more comfortable with a long ceasefire than with a continued dynamic conflict. A freeze reduces the need for further military escalation, large arms transfers, and uncertain territorial counterattacks.
Zelensky’s public support of a ceasefire is a calculated move. It offers political cover for diplomacy and appeals to war-weary publics. At the same time, it signals to Western backers that Ukraine is seeking peace—not just more weapons.
However, the hard reality remains: Russia must agree to conditions that Ukraine and its allies may deem unacceptable, and Western powers must decide whether they accept a frozen conflict in exchange for fewer casualties.
The coming days will reveal whether Putin takes the offer seriously—or uses it as a propaganda tool. Meanwhile, both sides await further diplomatic signals, possible third-party mediators, and whether military skirmishes continue despite the rhetoric of truce.