March 2025
March of 2025 brought along one of the most significant moments in the course of the ongoing war in Ukraine – a temporary ceasefire, agreed upon with the help of American diplomacy and with the support of Saudi Arabia, which hosted the Jeddah negotiations. Ukraine agreed on implementing the 30-day ceasefire, which is the first serious sign of de-escalation since autumn 2024. However, behind the diplomatic discourse and promises of peace, there are much more complex political and strategic calculations hidden.
During the previous few months, the conflict reached the point of exhaustion: the front did not move, and human and material losses increased day by day. The arrival of Donald Trump into the White House at the beginning of January opened up a new phase of American approach – a realpolitik and pragmatic one, with the goal of “temporarily ending” the war and preventing further collapse of European security. His administration used the power it owns as leverage: it temporarily ceased exchange of intelligence and military aid to Ukraine, thus sending a clear message to Kyiv that the moment for negotiations is imminent.
Exactly this decision turned out to be pivotal. When President Volodymyr Zelensky, after many days of consultations, accepted the terms of a temporary ceasefire, Washington publicly stated the same day that provision of military aid and intelligence cooperation will continue on a full scale. This was the sign that the United States succeeded in restoring the diplomatic initiative, but also in maintaining control over the tempo of the Ukrainian offensive. In essence, Trump’s administration applied the old doctrine of offering “conditional help” – the support does not cease, but becomes an instrument for disciplining the ally.
The Jeddah agreement includes a complete cessation of offensive operations – on the ground, in the air, and at sea – and implies also a monitoring mechanism, which includes observers from the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Formally speaking, we are speaking of a humanitarian break: exchange of prisoners, the return of civilians, restoration of supply, and fundamental infrastructure. But between the lines, the ceasefire also has a strategic function – a reset of combat position, testing the will of Moscow and Washington, as well as an attempt to define a new line of political balance.
For Russia, the ceasefire is not a defeat, but a pause in the war of attrition. Kremlin agreed to the deal, aware of the fact that thirty days of peace can bring much more than months of combat: consolidation of the battle line, reorganization of units, delivery of equipment, and regrouping of the forces. The Spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that “Moscow is open to a political solution, but only with the understanding of the reality in the field” – which is literally a clear signal that Russia is not denouncing its territorial gains, but uses them as a negotiation capital.
In Kyiv, reactions are divided. The official stance of President Zelensky is that the ceasefire is “a move made with respect for the responsibility towards the people”, but the opposition and one segment of military analysts threaten that a ceasefire could weaken the combat morale and enable the Russian troops to fortify their positions on key points. Still, the public opinion, tired from constant sirens and power outages, met the news with relief. For many Ukrainians, even thirty days without bombing means a return to seeming normalcy.
The reactions from Europe were cautious. Paris and Berlin welcomed the agreement as a “step in the right direction”, while Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia expressed some doubt, calling this agreement a mere “Russian tactic for freezing the front”. In Brussels, we can increasingly often hear that Europe must take up greater responsibility, because the “American interest in the war is obviously not the same as it was in 2022”.
In Washington, Trump presented this agreement as a diplomatic victory, stressing that “every peace is better than an endless war”. Still, in intelligence and military circles, there is a growing concern that Moscow could use this break to re-launch its offensive as soon as the ceasefire ends. In other words, the ceasefire is a tactical victory, but a strategic unknown.
In the field, even in the first days of the ceasefire, several minor incidents were recorded, but without major consequences. Even though both sides are respecting the agreement, the division line remains tense. At every moment, one wrong interpretation, a lost drone, or a grenade falling several meters away from the agreed zone, can cancel everything achieved until now.
This ceasefire in March is, therefore, not peace in a classical sense of the word. It is a pause in the war that is transforming – from a trench conflict to a high-risk diplomatic game. Ukraine is gaining a moment of rest and time to regroup, the US shows that it can manage the tempo of war, and Russia is using the silence as a consolidation tool. On paper, the peace lasts for thirty days; in reality, it is nothing but a new phase of the same conflict, in which the weapons are temporarily silent, but the strategies are not.
Author: dr Violeta Rašković Talović