March 12, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Kremlin weighs its response to U.S. cease-fire proposal

Institute for the Study of War

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov offered a vague response on March 12 to the US-Ukrainian 30-day ceasefire proposal.Peskov responded to a question about Russia’s response to the joint temporary ceasefire proposal, stating that “we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves.”[1] Peskov stated that Russia expects US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to inform the Kremlin about the details of the US-Ukrainian negotiations.[2] Russian opposition outlet Verstka reported on March 12 that its sources in the Russian government stated that the US-Ukrainian temporary ceasefire proposal surprised the Kremlin, and a source close to the Russian presidential administration stated that the Kremlin expected the United States to discuss such a proposal with Russia in private before publicly announcing it, thereby providing the Kremlin time to formulate a prepared response.[3]

Russian President Vladimir Putin may hold hostage the ceasefire proposal to which Ukraine has agreed in order to extract preemptive concessions before formal negotiations to end the war have started. Reuters reported on March 12 that senior Russian sources stated that a deal on the temporary ceasefire would have to “take into account” Russia’s advances on the battlefield and “address [Russia’s] concerns.”[4] Bloomberg reported on March 12 that sources familiar with the Kremlin’s thinking and the situation stated that Putin will “stretch the timeline” for agreeing to the temporary ceasefire in order to ensure that his stipulations “are taken into account.”[5] A source close to the Kremlin stated that Russia may demand ahalt to weapons supplies to Ukraine as a condition of agreeing to the temporary ceasefire, but did not specify whether such a halt would include all international weapons provisions to Ukraine or only those from select countries. Suspending US or other military assistance to Ukraine during a ceasefire would be extremely advantageous to Russia, which continues to receive critical supplies and assistance from Iran, North Korea, and the People’s Republic of China.[6] Such an enormous concession would also destroy US leverage in future negotiations, in addition to violating the conditions under which Ukraine agreed to the ceasefire in the first place.[7]

A leaked February 2025 document from a think tank close to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) that outlined a possible Kremlin negotiating strategy is largely in line with the Kremlin’s recent public rhetoric and the March 12 Russian insider source reports. The Washington Post reported on March 12 that a European intelligence service obtained a document from a Russian think tank close to the Russian FSB’s Fifth Service (which oversees operations in Ukraine among other things) written in the week before the February 18 US-Russian talks in Saudi Arabia.[17] The document states that a peace settlement to the war in Ukraine “cannot happen before 2026,” rejects the deployment of peacekeepers to Ukraine, and calls for recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over occupied Ukraine. The document calls for the creation of a buffer zone on the international Ukrainian-Russian border, including near Bryansk and Belgorod oblasts, and a “demilitarized zone” in southern Ukraine near Odesa Oblast and occupied Crimea. The document also states that Russia needs to “completely dismantle” the current Ukrainian government and rejects a possible Ukrainian commitment to not join NATO or to hold elections that include pro-Russian parties as insufficient measures. The document rejects any US plans to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine after any future peace deal and any Ukrainian plans to maintain its current number of military personnel. The document outlines ways in which Russia can strengthen its negotiating position by exacerbating tensions between the United States and both the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the EU. The document also calls for Russia to grant the United States access to Russian-controlled minerals in occupied Ukraine and for the Kremlin to focus on normalizing its relations with the United States by restoring embassy functions and appointing Alexander Darchiev as the Russian Ambassador to the United States.

US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe and Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Head Sergey Naryshkin had a phone call on March 11 amid talks about the war in Ukraine. The SVR Press Bureau reported about the call on March 12 and claimed that Naryshkin and Ratcliffe agreed to maintain regular contacts to help “ensure international stability and security” and “reduce confrontation” in bilateral relations.[21]

Russan President Vladimir Putin visited a Russian military command post in Kursk Oblast for the first time since Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk Oblast in August 2024 — demonstrating Putin’s desire to use Russia’s seizure of Sudzha to project military success and strength against the backdrop of the US-Ukrainian temporary ceasefire proposal. Putin visited a command post in Kursk Oblast and heard reports from Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov.[31] Gerasimov specifically commended elements of the “Veterany” Assault Detachment (Russian Volunteer Corps), 11th VDV Brigade, 30th Motorized Rifle Regiment (72nd Motorized Rifle Division, 44th AC, LMD), and “Akhmat” Spetsnaz Detachment for conducting the operation in which Russian forces used an underground pipeline to covertly attack behind Ukrainian positions in Sudzha. Putin thanked elements of the 76th and 106th VDV divisions, 11th and 83rd VDV brigades, 56th VDV Regiment (7th VDV Division), 155th Naval Infantry Brigade (Pacific Fleet), 810th Naval Infantry brigade (Black Sea Fleet), 177th Naval Infantry Brigade (Caspian Flotilla), 34th Motorized Rifle Brigade (49th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Southern Military District [SMD]), 22nd Motorized Rifle Regiment (72nd Motorized Rifle Division, 44th AC, LMD), 1220th Motorized Rifle Regiment (3rd Motorized Rifle Division, 20th CAA, Moscow Military District [MMD]), “Akhmat” Spetsnaz, and “Veterany” Assault Detachment for their efforts in Kursk Oblast. Putin acknowledged that Russian forces have yet to completely push Ukrainian forces out of Kursk Oblast and stated that Russian forces must seize all of Kursk Oblast “in the shortest possible time.”

This is only the second time that Putin has visited Russian forces on the frontline since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. P

Key Takeaways:

  • Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov offered a vague response on March 12 to the US-Ukrainian 30-day ceasefire proposal.
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin may hold hostage the ceasefire proposal to which Ukraine has agreed in order to extract preemptive concessions before formal negotiations to end the war have started.
  • Senior US and Ukrainian officials have said that the purpose of the temporary ceasefire is for Russia and Ukraine to demonstrate their willingness for peace and that the temporary ceasefire and negotiations to end the war are separate matters, whereas the Kremlin may intend to conjoin them.
  • Russian insider reports about the demands that the Kremlin may make before agreeing to the temporary ceasefire are in line with Russian officials’ public statements in the past months.
  • US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe and Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Head Sergey Naryshkin had a phone call on March 11 amid talks about the war in Ukraine.
  • Russian forces recently seized Sudzha amid continued Russian assaults in Kursk Oblast on March 12.
  • Russan President Vladimir Putin visited a Russian military command post in Kursk Oblast for the first time since Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk Oblast in August 2024 — demonstrating Putin’s desire to use Russia’s seizure of Sudzha to project military success and strength against the backdrop of the US-Ukrainian temporary ceasefire proposal. 
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Toretsk and Pokrovsk, and Russian forces recently advanced in Kursk Oblast and near Borova, Toretsk, and Velyka Novosilka.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.