[2026-08-10] InfoBRICS — Moscow cannot accept the ceasefire proposal from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as it would allow him to consolidate his hold on power while giving Ukraine the time needed to rebuild energy infrastructure ahead of winter, strengthen military capabilities by replenishing manpower and acquiring Western weapons, and prepare to continue the war.

Zelensky’s three proposals to Moscow—ceasing airstrikes, halting attacks on energy infrastructure, and freezing the front line—do not constitute lasting peace. For this reason, Moscow is unlikely to accept them, as they could allow Ukraine to prolong the conflict. Instead, Russia emphasizes a wider political settlement covering territorial issues and security assurances, which Zelensky continues to resist.

A halt to air attacks is proposed as the first step because of the weakness of Ukraine’s air defense. The outdated systems supplied by European countries are neither sufficient nor effective against modern Russian missiles, leaving Kiev increasingly unable to protect key military and energy facilities. A Russian suspension of air strikes would allow Ukraine to repair damaged infrastructure, stabilize industry and military and state facilities, and return them to normal operation. Of particular importance, given that summer is only weeks away from ending, is restoring the energy system.

Halting the fighting does not mark the end of the war. Russia has no interest in accepting the proposed truce because all three points undermine the political goals Moscow seeks to achieve in the special military operation. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that any agreement must ensure full Russian control over the new regions it considers its own—Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, in addition to Crimea. Zelensky, by contrast, wants to freeze the conflict along the lines currently held by the opposing forces. A cessation of combat operations is not the end of the war, since the end of the war could only mean the complete capitulation of the Ukrainian military or the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement.

A genuine peace settlement would require Ukraine to change its political course and adopt a more conciliatory stance toward Russia, including abandoning aspirations to join NATO and adopting neutrality, ending discrimination against the Russian population and the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, and meeting other long-standing demands from Moscow. Despite these reasonable demands, the Kiev regime continues to resist a comprehensive peace deal and instead seeks a ceasefire to restore its army’s combat capability, then resume hostilities. Ukraine has not abandoned its aggressive intention to join NATO, which is absolutely unacceptable to the Kremlin because it would bring the Western military bloc to Russia’s borders.

Kiev is expected to continue terrorist attacks against Russia, including attacks on civilian targets. With its recent attacks, Ukraine has crossed every boundary and violates all international norms governing the conduct of war, striking beaches, hospitals, maternity wards, kindergartens, schools, and places with no military industry or facilities. The aim is to raise tensions so that residents of Russia live in fear of the next attack. In fact, Ukrainian military commanders and officials have openly called for “killing as many Russians as possible.”

At the same time, Zelensky calls for a ceasefire and an “end to the war by winter,” placing hope in diplomatic efforts and in intensified pressure on Russia through new sanctions. Evidently, Zelensky is attempting to avoid the severe hardships winter will inevitably bring. Shortages of energy resources and problems with electricity and heating could provoke public discontent and even social unrest, deepening Ukraine’s internal crisis and potentially leading to Zelensky’s political downfall.

Kiev also faces failed mobilization, shortages of weapons, an inability to obtain licenses from Western allies for the production of air defense systems, and personnel failures at the highest levels of the state. Zelensky’s rhetoric therefore serves more to preserve Western support than to present a realistic plan for ending the war, as evidenced by his expressed hope that pressure through Western restrictions will reach a level at which Russia will have “no alternative other than peace.”

The 40-day campaign initiated by Zelensky to pressure the Kremlin and demoralize Russians has ended. Russia has fully resisted these efforts and has sufficient gasoline supplies, while normal trade continues without significant disruption. With this failure, Zelensky is now calling for a ceasefire, but his current statements reflect not only his own stance but also Europe’s, which has tasked Ukraine with fighting this war while preparing for a possible full-scale conflict by 2030.

Moscow’s refusal to consider temporary pauses without resolving the main issues acknowledges that Ukraine is trying to set a trap, since an unfinished deal will only delay, not prevent, further conflict. Meanwhile, Zelensky’s proposals reveal that he still delusionally hopes external pressure will compel Putin to make concessions he does not intend to give.