A pause in war: Putin’s surprise ceasefire and Its broader implications!

Raju Korti
On May 8, 2025, as the world commemorates the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, I find myself grappling with the implications of an unexpected announcement from Moscow. Vladimir Putin, in a move that has stunned both allies and adversaries, has ordered a 72-hour ceasefire in Ukraine, effective from May 8 to May 10. The Kremlin frames this as a gesture rooted in “humanitarian considerations,” a symbolic nod to the shared sacrifices of the Soviet people and their allies in defeating fascism. Yet, as someone who has closely followed the geopolitical chessboard, I cannot help but view this development with a mix of cautious intrigue and scepticism. What does this ceasefire signify? Is it a genuine olive branch or a calculated maneuver? And what should the international community --particularly in regions like South Asia, where tensions simmer along the Indo-Pak border -- make of it?

Representational pic: Wikipedia

The announcement comes at a time when the war in Ukraine has settled into a stalemate, with neither side achieving decisive gains. Russia’s military has faced setbacks, yet its resolve remains unbroken, fueled by nationalist rhetoric and a narrative of historical destiny. Ukraine, bolstered by Western support, continues to resist fiercely, but the toll on its people and infrastructure is staggering. Against this backdrop, Putin’s call for a truce, ostensibly to honour Victory Day, feels both poignant and perplexing. The cessation of “all hostilities” for three days is a rare pause in a conflict that has defied de-escalation. But the Kremlin’s track record -- marked by strategic ambiguity and opportunistic diplomacy -- demands that we probe deeper.

Is this ceasefire a genuine humanitarian gesture? Possibly. Victory Day holds profound significance in Russia, a moment to honour the 27 million Soviet lives lost in World War II. A temporary halt could allow civilians in war-torn regions to access aid, bury their dead, or simply breathe. Yet, the timing raises questions. Why now, when Russia’s military position, though strained, is not desperate? Why a unilateral declaration, with an appeal to Kyiv to reciprocate, rather than a negotiated truce? The answers likely lie in a blend of domestic and international objectives.

At home, the ceasefire ostensibly seeks to polish Putin’s image as a leader who balances strength with magnanimity. Amid economic sanctions and growing internal dissent, projecting a humanitarian face could shore up support among Russians who revere Victory Day. Internationally, it positions Russia as a moral actor, potentially softening criticism from Global South nations wary of Western dominance. By framing the truce as a tribute to a shared Allied victory, Putin subtly reminds the world of Russia’s historical role in shaping the modern order -- a narrative that resonates in countries like India, where anti-colonial sentiments linger.

The ceasefire, on its face, is welcome. Any reprieve from violence, however brief, saves lives and offers a glimmer of hope for dialogue. If Kyiv reciprocates, as the Kremlin has urged, it could create a fleeting window for humanitarian corridors or backchannel talks. The international community, particularly the United Nations, should seize this moment to press for aid deliveries and civilian evacuations. A neutral mediator like India -- could facilitate confidence-building measures to extend the truce’s benefits beyond 72 hours.

Yet, the welcome must be tempered with vigilance. Russia’s history of using ceasefires as tactical pauses to regroup or rearm is well-documented, from Syria to earlier phases of the Ukraine conflict. The unilateral nature of the announcement, without prior coordination with Kyiv, suggests a public relations gambit as much as a peace offering. If Ukraine rejects the truce, citing distrust, Russia can paint Kyiv as intransigent, scoring propaganda points. Moreover, the ceasefire’s brevity -- three days -- limits its practical impact, raising doubts about its sincerity. 

The international community must also consider the broader strategic context. Putin’s move could be a signal to China and other non-Western powers, reinforcing Russia’s narrative of moral equivalence with the West. By invoking World War II, he taps into a universal aversion to global conflict, subtly pressuring nations to view Russia’s actions in Ukraine through a less condemnatory lens. This is particularly relevant for countries like India, which maintain strategic ties with Moscow while navigating their own regional tensions.

The war clouds gathering along the Indo-Pak border offer a stark parallel to the Ukraine crisis, underscoring the fragility of peace in regions marked by historical grievances. Tensions between India and Pakistan, fuelled by territorial disputes and cross-border militancy, have flared periodically, with ceasefires often serving as temporary bandages rather than lasting solutions. The 2021 reinstatement of the 2003 ceasefire along the Line of Control brought a measure of calm, but recent incidents -- shelling, troop buildups, and inflammatory rhetoric -- suggest that the truce is fraying.

What can South Asia learn from Putin’s gambit? First, unilateral ceasefires, while symbolically powerful, are inherently unstable without mutual trust. India and Pakistan, like Russia and Ukraine, view each other through a lens of suspicion, with each side fearing that a pause will be exploited. Second, external actors play a critical role. Just as the UN or neutral nations could leverage Russia’s ceasefire to push for de-escalation, global powers -- particularly the United States and China—must actively support Indo-Pak dialogue to prevent a slide into conflict. Finally, the invocation of shared history, as Putin has done with Victory Day, holds potential. India and Pakistan share a pre-partition past and cultural ties that, while fraught, could be harnessed to humanize the “other” and build constituencies for peace.

However, the Indo-Pak context also highlights the limits of symbolic gestures. A 72-hour truce, like occasional cricket diplomacy or cultural exchanges, can create goodwill but fails to address root causes -- be it Kashmir’s status or the role of non-state actors. Similarly, Putin’s ceasefire does little to resolve the fundamental issues driving the Ukraine war: NATO expansion, Russian security concerns, and Ukraine’s sovereignty. The international community must recognize that such pauses, while valuable, are not substitutes for sustained diplomacy.

The international community should approach Putin’s ceasefire with pragmatic optimism. It must applaud the gesture while pressing for tangible outcomes—aid access, civilian safety, and ideally, an extension of the truce. Kyiv should be encouraged to respond constructively, perhaps by proposing monitored humanitarian corridors, to test Russia’s intentions. Western powers, often quick to dismiss Moscow’s overtures, should avoid knee-jerk rejection and instead use the moment to explore de-escalatory pathways, however narrow.

For regions like South Asia, the ceasefire serves as both a reminder and a warning. The Indo-Pak border, like Ukraine’s frontlines, is a tinderbox where miscalculation could ignite broader conflict. The global community, often distracted by great-power rivalries, must prioritize preventive diplomacy in such hotspots. India, with its non-aligned credentials and ties to both Russia and the West, could play a unique role, advocating for multilateral frameworks to manage crises, whether in Eastern Europe or South Asia.

As I reflect on this moment, I am struck by the paradox of war and peace. Putin’s ceasefire, like the fragile truces along the Indo-Pak border, embodies humanity’s dual impulses: to destroy and to heal. In 1945, the world emerged from the ashes of World War II with a vow to prevent such devastation again. Eighty years later, that vow is tested daily -- in Ukraine’s ravaged cities, in Kashmir’s contested valleys, and in countless other theaters of conflict. The ceasefire, however fleeting, is a flicker of hope, a reminder that even in the darkest times, the instinct for peace persists. But it is also a challenge -- to leaders, to nations, and to each of us -- to transform fleeting gestures into lasting change. The world is watching, and history will judge us by what we do next.