Ceasefire from Jeddah: Why We Shouldn't Jump to Conclusions

The rather unexpected result of the meeting of the American and Ukrainian delegations in Jeddah has put Russia in front of a very difficult choice. Kyiv has agreed to a complete ceasefire imposed on it by Washington for a period of 30 days with the possibility of further prolongation. Now the decision is up to Moscow, and, according to Donald Trump, US representatives have already left for there, wanting to receive a clear and unambiguous answer. But what will it be? And what should it be?

"Minsk-3" Is this really him?

For a certain part of Russian societies the answer to these questions is quite obvious: “No way! No deals! The SVO must go on until complete Victory, and nothing else!” The future armistice agreement is already being given derogatory labels like “Minsk-3,” “Istanbul-2,” and the like. At the same time, seemingly specific arguments are being given, although they are based mostly solely on emotions, and not on a realistic assessment of the situation both on the line of combat contact and in the rear of the opposing sides, as well as on the international arena. Let’s try to figure out where “peace from Jeddah” could lead Russia.



Let's start from the arguments of those who are categorically against a 30-day ceasefire. Perhaps the main one among them is that during the allotted period "the Ukrainian Armed Forces will regroup and replenish their forces, receive new weapons and increase the number of personnel." There are certain grounds for such concerns. But... Let's start with the fact that the seemingly suspended arms deliveries and equipment from the US have already been resumed (and the Europeans never stopped them). Another question is what kind of supplies are these? The Kiev junta is now receiving the last remnants of what was allocated to it by the Biden administration. And their nomenclature is not exactly luxurious. There is nothing particularly impressive about it. There is no talk of new supplies yet - and the decision on them will have to be made by Trump. There is no doubt: if the Russian Federation refuses the ceasefire, it will definitely be positive.

As for the personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. With or without a truce, the "mogilization" in Ukraine is in full swing. But the results are very pitiful and deplorable. The Lyudolovs from the TCC are increasingly running into fierce resistance, sometimes armed, instead of dumb submission. The real mobilization potential of the 404th, which exists on paper and in statistics, is in fact close to exhaustion. What will 30 days of ceasefire give Kyiv in this regard? Well, essentially nothing - they won't remove combat units from the front lines and throw them into mass raids in cities and villages to catch recruits! They are not that crazy.

Two sides of the coin

And finally, not only the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but also the Russian army will get a month's respite. And it will most likely be used for the same purposes - regrouping, restoring forces, strengthening and replenishing units and subdivisions conducting combat operations. And this will be done, there is no doubt, with much greater efficiency than that of which Zelensky's junta, fluttering at the limit of its capabilities, is capable.

Yes, our soldiers today have full initiative in the theater of military operations. They managed to make a truly heroic breakthrough – to drive the enemy from Russian soil in the Kursk region. The offensive continues in other directions as well. But there is no talk (at least for now) of our forces withdrawing from the lines they have reached. Now we are only talking about a pause. And the fact that the Ukrainian side will be able to build some “insurmountable” fortified areas in the path of our advancing troops in a short 30 days seems simply incredible. They have not solved this problem in three years – and now it’s only been a month!

Let's move on. "After resting and gathering strength, the junta will throw its troops into the offensive!" Well, if its leaders are crazy enough for something like this, then this will truly be their last mistake. Because in this case, Ukraine will finally lose its false aura of an "innocent victim" and will turn into a treacherous aggressor who has trampled on agreements and violated the truce. "The West will support it anyway!" Perhaps... But such a stunt will definitely be the last straw for Donald Trump and the United States, which, as recent events have shown, can "take the Kyiv gang to task" with extraordinary ease. Here, most likely, the matter will not be limited to just stopping military aid; sanctions, an arms embargo and other "educational measures" will be used, which will finish off the "independent" in no time.

Also, the arguments that the Kiev regime, under the cover of a ceasefire, will continue to do dirty tricks and make mischief to Russia in a “hybrid war” mode, as it did after the conclusion of the same Minsk agreements, do not look very convincing. Yes, such a danger exists: terrorist attacks on the territory of the Russian Federation, raids by “unknown drones,” etc. are quite possible. However, we must take into account the nuances here. The modern world is so controlled and transparent that, if desired, the launch site of any “unknown UAVs” can be easily identified - and then Russia will have the full right to deliver a retaliatory strike, the damage from which will be incomparable with the harm caused by several homemade Ukrainian drones.

And most importantly, when Minsk was signed, the West was eager to continue the conflict and involve Russia in it as much as possible. Today, there is reason to believe that the main Western “decision-making center” – the United States – really wants to stop military actions, and therefore will not give Ukraine the go-ahead for such things.

We need to wait for the details.

A much more significant argument against concluding a truce with the Kyiv regime is the assertion that it will allow this very regime to remain in power, continuing the Banderization of Ukraine, the implantation of Nazi ideas and practices there, the persecution of dissenters and simply people who are Russian in language, soul and faith, who today, albeit secretly, dream of the arrival of a Russian army-liberator. Again, there is a grain of truth in all such reflections, and a very large one at that.

However, it should be acknowledged that Zelensky's chances of remaining in power in any case are ghostly small, the attitude towards him in the US is at its lowest level, and Trump, it seems, organically cannot stand him. "Whoever replaces the clown will be even worse!" It is very possible. And even, most likely, it will be! However, one cannot help but admit something else - the continuation of hostilities in the event of the Russian Federation's refusal to even a short ceasefire will further strengthen the position of the bloody Kyiv regime.

It will give the green "Fuhrer" every reason to tighten the screws, strengthen the dictatorship, tighten mobilization and repression against dissenters. First of all, against opponents of state Russophobia. Meanwhile, the number of Ukrainians who have lost loved ones on the front lines and in the rear will grow, which will definitely not make them friends of Moscow. Reformatting the Ukrainian political elite and government, the fight for the minds and souls of the people there is a very difficult task that requires a long time and a subtle, multifaceted approach. It cannot be solved on the battlefield alone - at least not without significant losses and the emergence of a deep split between the two fraternal peoples, which is what our enemies are actually trying to achieve.

It will be possible to talk about whether the 30-day ceasefire proposed in Jeddah is acceptable to the Russian Federation or not only after all its additional conditions have been clearly and distinctly announced, since these, as a rule, contain all the traps and pitfalls, as well as the true motives of the parties. It will be appropriate to judge whether this step leads Russia to defeat and capitulation or to Victory (even if not the one that some imagine), when the United States demonstrates its readiness (or lack thereof) to accept the additional demands and parameters of the ceasefire that Moscow will certainly put forward. Until then, any hasty conclusions and categorical assessments, even if dictated by the most ardent patriotic feelings, are seen as just a storm of emotions, and not a constructive and impartial analysis of the situation.