April 21, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Putin rejects Ukraine offer for 30-day Easter truce — or a halt in long-range strikes civilian infrastructure

Institute for the Study of War

Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s April 20 proposal for a temporary moratorium on long-range strikes against civilian infrastructure, declined Zelensky’s offer to extend Putin’s own 30-hour Easter truce, and attempted to justify recent Russian strikes against civilian targets in Ukraine. Zelensky stated on April 20 that Ukraine and Russia achieved a long-range strikes ceasefire between April 19 and 20 and during the day on April 20 and proposed a temporary ceasefire on long-range missile and drone strikes against civilian infrastructure for a minimum of 30 days, with the opportunity to extend the ceasefire beyond 30 days.[1] Putin announced the end of the Easter truce on April 21 and rejected Zelensky’s proposed temporary moratorium on long-range strikes against civilian infrastructure while speaking to journalists, stating that Russia would need to “sort out” the proposed civilian infrastructure strikes moratorium.[2]Putin attempted to soften his rejection of Zelensky’s ceasefire proposal by claiming that Russia and other unspecified actors need to study strikes against civilian targets where military personnel are operating and “make appropriate decisions.” Putin did not suggest the possibility of creating independent monitoring mechanisms to determine the legitimacy of such strikes, and Russian officials have previously expressed disinterest in Western-led monitoring mechanisms as a condition of future ceasefires in Ukraine.[3] Putin also attempted to justify Russia’s recent missile strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and to obfuscate his ongoing rejection of US and Ukrainian ceasefire proposals. Putin acknowledged that Russian forces recently struck civilian infrastructure in Sumy City — likely referring to the April 13 Russian missile strike against Sumy City — but suggested that the reported presence of Ukrainian military personnel in Sumy City constituted a legitimate military target.[4] Putin claimed that Russian forces also targeted Ukrainian military personnel during a recent Russian strike against Odesa City.

Putin reiterated his rejection of the full ceasefire that Zelensky and the US have offered. Zelensky reiterated on April 20 Ukraine’s readiness to agree to a full and unconditional ceasefire for a minimum of 30 days.[5] Putin rejected the full ceasefire proposal on April 21, claiming that Ukraine was attempting to “seize the initiative and talk about expan[ding]” the ceasefire, and alleging that Russia would need to “carefully evaluate everything.”[6] Ukraine and the United States initially proposed a full ceasefire on March 13, and Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly rejected the proposal over the past five weeks.[7] The US Department of State told Reuters on April 20 that the United States would welcome the extension of the Easter truce, however.[8] US President Donald Trump expressed hope on April 20 that Russia and Ukraine would make a deal this week, possibly referring to a general ceasefire agreement that would precede future peace negotiations.[9] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov appeared to respond to Trump’s statement by stating that the Kremlin is not ready to discuss a time frame to end the war.[10] Putin’s continued rejection of the US-Ukrainian March 2025 proposed general ceasefire and the Kremlin’s refusal to commit to any time frame to end the war highlight Putin’s disinterest in ending the war via peace negotiations in the near term.[11]Putin’s continued rejection of US and Ukrainian ceasefire proposals runs counter to Trump’s stated approach of first establishing a ceasefire and then negotiating a broader peace agreement and to Trump’s goal of achieving a lasting peace in Ukraine.

Russian state media amplified Kherson Oblast occupation head Vladimir Saldo’s calls for additional territorial concessions from Ukraine in areas to which Russia has not yet laid formal claim. Saldo stated on April 21 to Kremlin newswire TASS that the “return” of the west (right) bank of the Dnipro River is “fundamentally important” and an “absolute priority” for Russia.[12] Saldo claimed that Ukrainian forces will continue efforts to use the east (left) bank of the river as a “lever of pressure” against Russia and that the presence of Ukrainian forces on the west bank hinders the resumption of shipping along the river. Saldo concluded that “the segment of the [Dnipro River] that passes through Kherson, Zaporizhia, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts must be completely under [Russian] control” so as to guarantee the development of infrastructure “associated with the river.” Russian forces only currently occupy positions on the east bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts, yet Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently demanded since June 2024 that Ukraine cede all of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts to Russia.[13] Saldo appears to be calling for additional Russian territorial claims along the river in central Dnipropetrovsk Oblast — an oblast that Russia has not formally claimed or illegally annexed. It is unclear how much territory along the banks of the river in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Saldo is claiming must be under Russian control or if Saldo is implying that Russian forces must occupy extensive territory east and northeast of the river such that Russia “completely control” the river and its immediate surrounding areas. Russian forces may want to control a minimum 25 kilometers of territory on both banks of the Dnipro River so as to prevent Ukrainian forces from conducting tube artillery strikes against the area.

Saldo’s call for additional Russian territorial claims along the Dnipro River is consistent with other Kremlin official statements, as Russia continues to make extensive territorial demands of Ukraine while offering no concessions of its own. Kherson, Zaporizhia, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts are notably included in the amorphous, invented region of “Novorossiya” that Kremlin officials often claim is “integral” to Russia and invoke to make additional territorial claims in southern Ukraine.[14] Putin invoked the term “Novorossiya” on April 21 at the “Service” All-Russian Municipal Award Ceremony, claiming that municipal workers are working in very difficult conditions “in the regions of Donbas and Novorossiya.”[15] Putin has previously instructed Russian forces to create “buffer zones” in areas of Ukraine to which Russia has not formally laid claim, including in Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts.[16] Saldo’s call for Russian control of areas in Kherson, Zaporizhia, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts along the Dnipro River to “guarantee the development of infrastructure” would be consistent with Putin’s previous objectives concerning the creation of “buffer zones.”

Kremlin officials continued to reiterate Russia’s pre-war demands on April 21. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on April 21 that Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO would threaten Russia’s national interests and that this is one of the “root causes” of the war.[17] Russian officials have repeatedly claimed that any peace settlement in Ukraine needs to eliminate the “root causes” of the war, including NATO’s alleged violation of obligations not to expand eastward.[18] Saldo’s and Peskov’s statements demonstrate how Russian officials continue to claim that Russia’s pre-war demands are non-negotiable while also making increasingly extensive territorial demands of Ukraine.

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.