As Christians in Eastern Europe prepared to mark Orthodox Easter, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a temporary ceasefire-an overture ostensibly meant to allow for a solemn religious observance. The truce, spanning 30 hours from 6:00 pm on April 19 to midnight on April 21, was meant to pause hostilities during one of the holiest periods in the Orthodox calendar. However, the brief respite immediately became the latest flashpoint in a war defined by mutual distrust and broken promises.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded to the ceasefire declaration with a mixture of skepticism and a conditional counterproposal. While not outright rejecting the idea of a ceasefire, Zelensky called for a more meaningful, extended truce-on the condition that Russia genuinely adheres to a cessation of hostilities. “If Russia is now suddenly ready to really join the format of complete and unconditional ceasefire, Ukraine will act in a reciprocal way,” he stated on social media, emphasizing a policy of “silence in response to silence, strikes in response to strikes.”

The language of the Ukrainian leader revealed deep-seated doubts about Moscow’s motives. Zelensky accused Russia of continuing “assault activities” on various unspecified parts of the front line even after Putin’s ceasefire had supposedly taken effect. In his view, the offer from Moscow may be less about religious observance and more about public relations optics or an attempt to regroup under the guise of peace. He earlier characterized the ceasefire proposal as an attempt to “play with human lives.”

Putin, for his part, had framed the ceasefire as a humanitarian gesture inspired by Orthodox Easter. In his announcement, he directed the Russian armed forces to observe the truce while remaining vigilant against provocations. The Kremlin made it clear that Russian troops would retain the right to respond to any violations by Ukraine. This language itself indicated that the ceasefire was not envisioned as a robust peace initiative, but rather a conditional lull, rife with potential for misinterpretation and rapid breakdown.

Indeed, such breakdowns reportedly occurred almost immediately. War correspondent Andrey Filatov, reporting from the Donetsk People’s Republic’s Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk) area, described ongoing fighting shortly after the ceasefire began. Filatov claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched kamikaze drones and artillery loaded with cluster munitions toward Russian positions. These reports, while difficult to independently verify, suggest that even minimal implementation of the truce was failing in key areas.

Moreover, the Russian Ministry of Defense referenced a prior US-mediated agreement on March 18 to protect energy infrastructure, which Moscow claims was violated by Ukrainian forces more than 100 times. That truce, while limited in scope and not intended as a full ceasefire, is being used by Russian officials to illustrate a pattern of what they see as Ukrainian bad faith. The Kremlin’s insistence that Ukraine regularly breaches agreed-upon norms reinforces a broader narrative aimed at painting Kiev as the intransigent party in the conflict.

But Ukraine’s leadership counters that Russia often uses these types of temporary truces not as paths toward peace, but as tactical opportunities to reposition forces or launch surprise offensives. These concerns are not without precedent. In previous pauses-whether tied to international holidays or humanitarian corridors-there have been frequent allegations that one side or the other used the break in fighting to regroup or gain an advantage. With a lack of a reliable third-party monitoring force, verifying compliance is nearly impossible in real time.

Zelensky’s call for a longer truce, while ostensibly a moral high ground maneuver, also serves a strategic purpose. It pushes the burden of proof back onto Russia. If Moscow is genuinely interested in a cessation of violence, why not make it permanent, or at least significantly longer than a 30-hour window? By asking for an extension, Ukraine attempts to appear as the party most committed to ending bloodshed while simultaneously calling out what it perceives as Kremlin theatrics.

The political theater surrounding this brief ceasefire also underscores the immense difficulty in negotiating even the most basic humanitarian agreements amid an active war. Despite the symbolism of Easter, a time traditionally associated with forgiveness, renewal, and peace, both Moscow and Kiev remain locked in a zero-sum struggle where every act-even a ceasefire-is viewed through a lens of strategic advantage.

At the heart of this exchange is not just a temporary pause in fighting, but an attempt by both leaders to command the moral narrative of the war. Putin wants to present Russia as willing to engage in religious and humanitarian gestures, while Zelensky seeks to portray Ukraine as a responsible actor held hostage by a duplicitous enemy. Both leaders are also aware of the international audience watching these moves, especially those in the West who continue to provide Ukraine with substantial military and economic support.

The uncertain status of the truce-and the lack of clarity about its enforcement-exemplifies the broader fog of war that has enveloped Ukraine since February 2022. Ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, and diplomatic overtures are increasingly performative gestures in a conflict where trust has long since eroded. The very fact that two adversaries cannot agree even on whether a ceasefire is being observed shows how far removed both sides are from a negotiated peace.

Ultimately, the fate of this brief Easter truce may prove symbolic of the broader war effort: halting, conditional, riddled with accusations, and lacking in trust. While religious holidays might offer brief glimmers of hope, the frontlines tell a different story-one of a war that grinds on, with both sides prepared to fight long after Easter candles have burned out.

Whether Zelensky’s offer to extend the ceasefire becomes a meaningful initiative or is simply another footnote in a war of attrition depends on actions, not words. As of now, both remain in short supply.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Zelensky counters Putin’s Easter ceasefire proposal with conditional extension appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings