Is Russian President Vladimir Putin finally pivoting toward peace? At first glance, he appears to be adopting a new approach. Beyond Russia’s participation in the Abu Dhabi talks — the first trilateral discussions since the war began — US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that Moscow has agreed to a one-week partial ceasefire, refraining from strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Lest this be dismissed as mere propaganda, Russian military bloggers claimed on 29 January that Moscow had issued an order the previous day to halt long-range strikes until 3 February. Kyiv has reportedly agreed not to strike Russian oil refineries in retaliation.

Any respite to the suffering of Ukrainian civilians is to be welcomed, particularly as they endure power outages during sub-zero temperatures. The truce would also defer what Kyiv described as a “new massive strike” allegedly being planned by Moscow ahead of talks on Sunday. However, there is no proof that the ceasefire will take effect, let alone hold. The official start and end dates remain unknown, while the Kremlin declined to say whether such a truce had been reached.

Reports have understandably provoked considerable mistrust. Lviv launched an emergency preparedness regime overnight, with its mayor urging that despite “loud statements about an energy truce […], our enemy is such that they can take advantage” of a cold snap this weekend. To be fair, the historical record offers scant grounds for optimism. A March moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure unraveled almost immediately, as the two sides announced different days for the start and Russian forces continued pounding Ukraine’s grid, claiming that Kyiv had violated it. Putin then failed to observe a three-day ceasefire that he had specifically sought to ensure smooth 9 May commemorations of Soviet victory in the Second World War.

So, if this will prove just another entry on the log of failed ceasefires, why agree to it? Trump said it was “very nice” that Putin had acceded to his request for the truce and gave himself a pat on the back for producing something the Ukrainians “almost didn’t believe” but were nonetheless “very happy” to see.

The US proposed the ceasefire as a confidence-building measure in wider negotiations. But that is not to say that a truce would lead to peace, even if it holds. For one thing, a pause in energy strikes makes no impact on the issues holding back negotiations. While the US claims to have agreed security guarantees with Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has rejected the terms and added that a long-term ceasefire of over 60 days would be unacceptable, since it would let Kyiv rearm. Meanwhile, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov has denied claims that territory remains the only sticking point, insisting that there are other outstanding issues.

Complicating matters further, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov has said that Putin is willing to discuss terms with Volodymyr Zelensky, but only if the Ukrainian leader comes to Moscow — a gesture aimed less at securing peace and more at saving the Kremlin’s death squads the time and effort of going to Kyiv. Moscow has pledged to guarantee Zelensky’s safety in Russia, but few will take such a commitment seriously. It is a trap in more than one sense: besides the obvious danger if he went, Zelensky’s refusal now means that Moscow can crow that it tried to cooperate with the peace process but the Ukrainian side proved obstructive. None of this suggests Russia is taking negotiations seriously.

Any relief for Ukraine’s civilians is to be commended and supported, yet it will almost certainly be short-lived. After almost four years of grinding war and with Moscow still endeavoring to hold back negotiations, a week-long halt to energy strikes is insufficient to inspire any real confidence.

---

Bethany Elliott is a writer specialising in Russia and Eastern Europe.

BethanyAElliott

---