DONATE

Current News

Archives

Focus Areas

< Back

March 18, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Putin agrees to partial cease-fire only

Institute for the Study of War

Russian President Vladimir Putin did not accept the US-Ukrainian proposal for a temporary ceasefire along the frontline and reiterated his demands for a resolution to the war that amount to Ukrainian capitulation.[1] Putin and US President Donald Trump held a phone call on March 18.[2] The Kremlin’s official readout of the call stated that Putin emphasized the need to address the “root causes” of the war.[3] Russian officials have repeatedly defined these root causes as NATO’s eastward expansion and Ukraine’s alleged violations of the rights of Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine. Russian officials’ calls for the elimination of these “root causes” amount to Russian demands for Ukraine’s permanent neutrality and the installation of a pro-Russian government in Kyiv.[4]

Putin demanded on March 18 that Ukraine stop mobilizing (i.e. recruiting and training) forces during a potential temporary ceasefire. Putin also called for a halt to all foreign military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine but did not discuss Russia’s military support from North Korea, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and Iran.[5] Putin claimed that Russia and the United States should continue their efforts toward a peace settlement in “bilateral mode,” excluding Ukraine or Europe from future negotiations about the war in Ukraine. Putin’s demands on the March 18 call parallel the demands he made on March 13.[6]

ISW continues to assess that Putin is attempting to hold the temporary ceasefire proposal hostage in order to extract preemptive concessions ahead of formal negotiations to end the war.[7] ISW also continues to assess that Putin’s demands for the removal of the legitimate government of Ukraine, the weakening of the Ukrainian military such that it cannot defend against future Russian aggression, and the denial of Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence remain unchanged.[8] The persistence of Putin’s demands for Ukraine’s capitulation demonstrates that Putin is not interested in good-faith negotiations to pursue Trump’s stated goal of achieving a lasting peace in Ukraine.

Trump and Putin agreed on a temporary moratorium on long-range strikes against energy infrastructure, but the exact contours of the moratorium remain unclear at this time. The Kremlin stated that Putin accepted Trump’s proposal for a 30-day moratorium on strikes against “energy infrastructure” and that Putin “immediately gave the Russian military the corresponding order,” whereas the White House stated that Putin and Trump agreed to “an energy and infrastructure ceasefire.”[9] It is unclear which targets are explicitly prohibited under the 30-day moratorium given the difference in language between the two readouts of the call.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky endorsed the Trump-Putin energy strikes moratorium agreement on March 18 and said that Ukraine expects to receive additional information from Trump about the proposal.[13] Zelensky stated that Ukraine would not accept a situation in which Russia strikes Ukrainian energy infrastructure and Ukraine is unable to respond.

Putin continues to hold the temporary ceasefire hostage, likely to extract further concessions from US President Donald Trump and delay or spoil negotiations for an enduring peace in Ukraine. Putin rejected a temporary ceasefire in the Black Sea but agreed to participate in negotiations on such an agreement, which Putin will likely use to delay or spoil negotiations for a permanent peace agreement.[14] Putin also did not accept the US-Ukrainian temporary frontline ceasefire and continued to cite concerns that call back to his pre-war demands amounting to Ukraine’s total capitulation and regime change. The Kremlin readout stated that Putin and Trump discussed the development of bilateral economic and energy cooperation, though White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that future US-Russian relations would include “enormous economic deals…only when peace has been achieved.”[15]

Key Takeaways:

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin did not accept the US-Ukrainian proposal for a temporary ceasefire along the frontline and reiterated his demands for a resolution to the war that amount to Ukrainian capitulation.
  • Trump and Putin agreed on a temporary moratorium on long-range strikes against energy infrastructure, but the exact contours of the moratorium remain unclear at this time.
  • Putin continues to hold the temporary ceasefire hostage, likely to extract further concessions from US President Donald Trump and delay or spoil negotiations for an enduring peace in Ukraine.
  • Russian forces recently advanced in western Zaporizhia Oblast amid intensified Russian offensive operations in the area, likely as part of efforts to leverage Russia’s deliberate stalling of the temporary ceasefire proposal to make battlefield gains.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kurakhove, and Russian forces recently advanced in Kursk Oblast and near Borova.
  • The Russian military is reportedly increasing the number of its information and psychological operations units.
Share the Post:
Close

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.