In a move that has sparked both hope and skepticism, Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to halt strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for 30 days following a 90-minute phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump. The Kremlin presented this as a step toward broader peace talks, while the White House confirmed that negotiations would begin in the Middle East. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky cautiously welcomed the pause in attacks but remained firm that Russia was not ready for a full-scale resolution. With major conditions set by Moscow and a history of strategic maneuvering, many are questioning whether this truce is a sincere attempt at peace or merely a calculated distraction.

The conditions Putin attached to any lasting ceasefire raise serious concerns about his true intentions. The Kremlin’s statement emphasized that any resolution must address the “root causes” of the conflict—diplomatic language that often masks demands unfavorable to Ukraine. Among these conditions, Russia insists on halting all Western military aid to Kyiv and ending Ukraine’s troop mobilization. If agreed upon, these terms would severely weaken Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Critics warn that this is a classic Putin tactic: offering limited concessions to appear reasonable while quietly working toward broader strategic goals. If Ukraine and its allies are pressured into accepting these conditions, Russia could gain a significant advantage without ending the war.

Zelensky, while expressing cautious support for the temporary truce, made it clear that Ukraine would not accept conditions that undermine its sovereignty. He called for the immediate release of Ukrainian prisoners of war as a sign of goodwill from Moscow—something Russia has not committed to. His response reflects deep distrust in Putin’s intentions, reinforced by the continued presence of Russian troops in occupied regions. Despite the announced energy truce, air raid sirens in Kyiv rang out shortly after the call, serving as a stark reminder that Russia’s military operations have not stopped. The question remains: is this ceasefire a genuine step toward peace or a ploy to weaken Ukraine’s resistance?

Western reactions have been divided. Some leaders have welcomed the development, seeing it as a potential opening for further negotiations. Others remain wary, pointing out that past ceasefires have been used by Russia to regroup, rearm, and prepare for further offensives. Former U.S. security officials have described Putin’s approach as a “power play,” in which he makes superficial concessions to gain leverage while offering little in return. Trump, eager to frame his involvement as a diplomatic success, has touted the call as “very productive,” but the reality is far more complex. The shift in U.S. tone—from demanding a full ceasefire to accepting a limited pause—raises concerns that Washington may be aligning itself more closely with Moscow’s terms.

With peace talks set to begin, many are asking: is this truce a sign of genuine diplomatic progress, or is it a smokescreen for a larger geopolitical maneuver? If Putin’s past tactics are any indication, this may be less about ending the war and more about positioning Russia for future gains. Whether Ukraine and its allies can navigate this diplomatic trap without sacrificing key strategic interests will determine the true impact of this so-called ceasefire. In the coming weeks, the world will see if this is the beginning of a negotiated peace—or just another chapter in Putin’s long game.