US and Ukraine Hatch 'Ceasefire' Travesty

The US and Ukraine have finalized a ‘temporary ceasefire deal’ during the Jeddah talks, which were meant to be a kind of conciliatory round two chance for Ukraine to amend for Zelensky’s faux pas. Hailing the ‘success’, Trump immediately announced all previous restrictions on weapons aid and intel sharing to be lifted from Ukraine:

The ceasefire agreement comes just a day after Ukraine launched the largest drone attack on Moscow of the entire war, with an estimated 400-500 drones, almost all of which were shot down, the remainder hitting civilian apartment blocks.

It appears to have been made for no better reason than scoring much-needed political points for Trump, who now wallows in a post-euphoric doldrums phase of his floundering second term, when virtually every one of his campaign promises has faltered or flopped. No Epstein, JFK, or 9/11 lists, no Mexican wall, no Fort Knox audit or UFO disclosure, no mass deportations, with ICE raids rumored to have halted, no promised US troop withdrawals from Syria, Europe, or elsewhere. Every other boastful attempt to capture Greenland, Canada, Panama, and everything in between has likewise fallen flat on its face, with countries no longer fearing nor taking the US seriously.

Desperate for a razzle-dazzle to slap points on the scoreboard, Trump’s team tipped this rushed ‘ceasefire’ deal for being just the trick. Except, it’s about the most nonsensically absurd ceasefire attempt imaginable, a veritable charade by another name.

1. It comes a day after Ukraine’s massive drone provocation, meant specifically to spoil the ceasefire by making Russia look like the bad guy, after Russia rightfully rejects the deal.

2. It comes in the midst of one of the largest frontline collapses of the war, as Ukrainian troops are being battered, decimated, and driven out of Kursk.

3. It comes with zero ‘concessions’ or offers to Russia itself, but huge reward to Ukraine in the form of the reactivation of all weapons shipments, aid, and intelligence sharing.

4. It comes when Ukraine still controls some Kursk territory, which is an obvious common sense non-starter for Russia.

As I wrote on X:

It’s clear that the attempt is more political in nature, than anything else. In fact, the coordinated messaging was again obvious to see, with the actors creepily pantomiming an obvious script:

This isn’t normal.

It appears intended to fail by design, to transfer the onus onto Russia as the spurner of ‘peace’, so that a new round of pro-Ukrainian military support can be galvanized. Afterwards, Trump stated that he hopes Russia will agree, but that if it doesn’t, “we’ll just have to keep fighting.”

As someone else aptly put it:

If we don't get Russia to cease fire, we'll just keep fighting and supplying Ukraine - Donald Trump.

In both versions of "peace", the US will supply it. In one of them, they will also buy Ukraine a month to regroup

Think about those choices from Russia’s perspective. Trump has already resumed supplies to Ukraine. So, Russia either gives Ukraine a 30-day reprieve while it gets fully restocked by the US, or Russia continues fighting as Ukraine gets restocked. Why would Russia possibly choose the former? Rubio’s reasoning: “Russia should make a gesture of good will.”

It’s not a stretch to say Russia has extended enough ‘good will gestures’ in this conflict. In short, the US is asking Russia for a big favor. And Rubio seems to hint at the orchestrated setup mentioned earlier:

Rubio says: “if Russia does not accept the ceasefire, we'll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here."

So while Russia is making gains, they will have to accept terms dictated by the US/Ukraine -- while US arms resume flowing -- or else they become the "impediment".

The disingenuous nature of it was further hinted at by Ukrainians themselves:

What else is clear is that the ceasefire was so “rapidly” and suddenly hammered out just as Zelensky’s last trump card fell away, with Kursk being all but buttoned-up at this point. Russians With Attitude reminds us:

Short history of Ukrainian peace negotiations:

1. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are killed in the Ilovaisk encirclement (2014) - "We're ready for peace! Let's negotiate!" (Minsk-1 is concluded and they break it immediately)

2. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are killed in the Debaltsevo encirclement (2015) - "Stop the war! We want peace!" (Minsk-2 is concluded and they break it immediately, and afterwards openly state that they never even intended to honor it)

3. Russian troops are outside Kiev (2022) - "We are ready for negotiations" (They sign a peace deal, then shoot their own negotiator in the head & break the peace immediately)

4. The Ukrainian army suffers a collapse in Kursk oblast (2025) - ... guess what

Putin, for his part, has already clearly articulated in 2024 what it would take for an actual ceasefire, which apparently no one has bothered to listen to:

Scott Ritter underscores the above:

I’ve lost faith in the good faith of the Trump negotiating team. A 30-day ceasefire would be a boon to Ukraine. A chance to stabilize the frontlines. To strip all tactical and operational advantages Russia has accrued through the blood and sacrifice of their soldiers. And once Ukraine recovers, then to sit at a table where a rejuvenated Ukraine rejects Russia’s conditions for peace.

Trump’s team has not negotiated in good faith. And the fact that this proposal is offered after Ukraine carries out a massive strike against Moscow? Russia will reject this ridiculous proposal. And hopefully escalate the violence to such a scale that the US will realize that there needs to be a realistic peace proposal agreed to in writing before any ceasefire takes hold. One that includes the withdrawal of all Ukrainian forces from Constitutional Russia. The Ukrainian troops can leave voluntarily. Or die. Trump isn’t serious about peace. And Ukraine will reap the whirlwind as a result.

This is all on top of Trump’s latest waffling, wherein he’s again suddenly claimed Russia is the one without the cards:

Again, I ask: How can Russia take such an administration seriously, and use their word as an ironclad guarantee of major agreements surrounding Russia’s existential-level strategic security?