World
Ukraine accepts 30-day ceasefire in US talks: What it means for Russia war
On Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Ukraine has accepted a 30-day ceasefire with Russia after critical peace talks with the United States in Saudi Arabia.
Washington has, in turn, lifted its pause on military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv.
After eight hours of negotiations in the port city of Jeddah, the terms of peace were jointly signed and will be presented to Russia, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who represented Washington in Saudi Arabia, said. The ball is now in Moscow’s court, said Rubio.
Here is what we know about the deal that was struck – and what it means for Russia’s war on Ukraine, now into its fourth year, at a time when US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that ending the conflict is among his top geopolitical priorities.
What is the ceasefire deal about?
The deal was reached after a meeting in Saudi Arabia. Ukraine was represented by Andriy Yermak, head of Zelenskyy’s office; Andrii Sybiha, the minister of foreign affairs; Rustem Umerov, the minister of defence; and Pavlo Palisa, a colonel in Zelenskyy’s office.
The US was represented by Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.
The US and Ukraine released a joint statement after the talks on Tuesday. This statement says that the countries have agreed on “an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties”.
In an X post on Tuesday, Zelenskyy added that the ceasefire will apply to missile, drone and bomb attacks “not only in the Black Sea, but also along the entire front line”.
The joint statement added that this is subject to agreement by Russia – underlining the unusual nature of the agreement. Ceasefire deals are usually struck between warring parties, not one of the nations in a conflict and a country attempting to mediate peace.
The statement said that the US “will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace”.
On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia was waiting to be briefed by the US about the ceasefire proposal before it could comment on whether or not it accepts the proposal’s terms.
What does Ukraine get in return for agreeing to a 30-day ceasefire?
The joint statement added that the US will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and military aid to Ukraine.
After a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Zelenskyy on February 28 at the White House took an acrimonious turn, the US had paused military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine.
The statement added that the presidents of both countries had agreed on inking a deal on Ukraine’s critical minerals “as soon as possible”. The US and Ukraine have been discussing a minerals deal for weeks, which will allow the US to invest in Ukraine’s mineral resources. Trump and Zelenskyy were expected to sign this deal during the Ukrainian leader’s recent White House meeting, but the agreement was not signed.
The joint statement does not explicitly mention any security guarantees to Kyiv – something that Zelenskyy has been seeking.
Trump has repeatedly rejected the idea of the US offering security guarantees. However, the Trump administration has argued that US investment in Ukraine, through the minerals deal, would serve as a security guarantee.
In a Fox News interview that aired on March 3, Vice President JD Vance said: “If you want real security guarantees, if you want to actually ensure that Vladimir Putin does not invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine.” Vance implied that this would deter Russia from attacking Ukraine.
What did Ukraine propose at the meeting?
In a post on his X account on Tuesday, Zelenskyy said that the discussion in Saudi Arabia was constructive.
He added that during the meeting, the team from Ukraine proposed three key points; “silence in the skies,” with neither side firing missiles, bombs or launching long-range drone attacks against each other; “silence at sea”; and the release of civilian and military prisoners of war as well as the Ukrainian children who were forcibly sent to Russia.
The Ukrainian leader wrote that Kyiv was ready to accept the proposal. “If Russia agrees, the ceasefire will take effect immediately.”
Rubio also posted on X after the meeting. “We are one step closer to restoring durable peace for Ukraine. The ball is now in Russia’s court.”
How significant is the resumption of US aid and intelligence?
“The US support which was withdrawn in order to force Ukraine into agreeing to the outline of the ceasefire was significant,” Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera. He added that Ukraine had no choice but to accept the deal.
The suspension of military and intelligence sharing was hindering Ukraine on the battlefield.
Even before the war in Ukraine started in February 2022, the US provided significant intelligence support to Ukraine. This support would help Ukraine prepare for incoming Russian attacks and also deploy long-range missiles to attack Russian logistical centres.
On March 5, US officials confirmed that this support was suspended. As the suspension came into effect, Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford, reporting from Ukraine, spoke with a Ukrainian commander in a unit close to the front line. “He said that his unit and many like him right the way along that 1,300km [808 miles] front line in the east and south of Ukraine relied on American intelligence gathering for around 90 percent of the intelligence work that is done,” Stratford said.
While effects of the intelligence suspension were felt immediately, the suspension of military aid spurred a sense of impending doom. “Without the US military aid, Ukrainian forces will gradually lose combat capability. My guess is that the Ukrainians can hold out for two to four months before their lines buckle and the Russians break through,” Mark Cancian, a former US Marine Corps colonel and a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Al Jazeera at the time.
Will Russia accept a ceasefire?
Russia has not responded to the ceasefire yet.
“It would be strange and out of character if Russia were to agree to the current proposition without presenting additional demands,” Giles said. “Russia has every incentive now to press for additional demands in order to agree to a ceasefire.”
Giles added that Russian President Vladimir Putin could push for additional demands including sanctions relief or “permanent restrictions on security guarantees given to Ukraine”. Since the war began in 2022, the US and its allies have imposed at least 21,692 sanctions on Russia.
The sanctions have targeted Russian individuals, media organisations, the military sector, energy sector, aviation, shipbuilding and telecommunications, among other sectors.
“If past performance is any guide, those demands will be backed by the US,” Giles said.
Trump, though, said on March 7 that he was “strongly considering” imposing sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a peace agreement is reached with Ukraine.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that it has not ruled out contacts with US representatives over the next few days, Russian state news agency RIA reported. Trump has said that the US is planning to communicate with Russia in the coming days.
Trump’s Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff plans to visit Moscow to speak with Putin in the coming days, according to two anonymous sources briefed on the matter, Reuters reported. This will be Witkoff’s second meeting with Putin since last month, when he became the first high-level US official to travel to Russia since the beginning of the war.
Waltz, the national security adviser, also told a press conference after the discussion in Jeddah: “I will talk to my Russian counterpart in the coming days.”
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A massive ruby unearthed in Burma is being hailed as the second-largest ever discovered in the conflict-ridden country.
The ruby weighs about 11,000 carats — about 4.8 pounds — and was unearthed near Mogok in the Mandalay region, the center of Burma’s gem industry and an area affected by ongoing conflict, according to The Associated Press, citing state media.
The stone was found in mid-April, shortly after the country’s traditional New Year celebrations.
MAN STUMBLES ONTO RARE DIAMOND TREASURE DURING ARKANSAS PARK TRIP WITH FAMILY: ‘KNEW IT WAS DIFFERENT’
Burma’s newly discovered ruby is displayed at the president’s office in Naypyitaw on May 7, 2026. (Myanmar Military True News Information Team/AP)
Although it is roughly half the size of a 21,450-carat ruby discovered in 1996, experts say the new find could be more valuable because of its higher quality, the outlet reported.
It has a purplish-red color with slight yellow tones, moderate transparency and a highly reflective surface.
Burmese President Min Aung Hlaing and his cabinet have already inspected the stone in the country’s capital of Naypyidaw.
ONCE-IN-A-CENTURY TREASURES DATING BACK 4,500 YEARS UNEARTHED IN LEGENDARY CITY
Burmese officials inspect a newly discovered ruby at the president’s office in Naypyidaw on May 7, 2026. (Myanmar Military True News Information Team/AP)
Burma produces up to 90% of the world’s rubies, mostly from Mogok and nearby Mong Hsu.
The gem trade — both legal and illegal — is a major source of income in the country.
However, rights groups, including Global Witness, have long urged jewelers to avoid buying Burmese gemstones, saying the trade helps fund the country’s military governments, according to The Associated Press.
RARE 10-CARAT BLUE DIAMOND AMONG $100M WORTH OF GEMS GOING UP FOR AUCTION
This photo taken on May 16, 2019, shows miners working in a ruby mine in Mogok, north of Mandalay. (Ye Aung Thu/AFP via Getty Images)
Gem mining also finances ethnic armed groups fighting for autonomy, contributing to Burma’s long-running conflicts.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The mining regions remain unstable.
Mogok was seized in July 2024 by the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), an ethnic armed group. Control later returned to the military under a ceasefire deal brokered by China late last year.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The European Union is still struggling to decide if, how, and when it wants to talk directly with Russia to advance negotiations towards a lasting peace in Ukraine, as member states remain split on whether the benefits would outweigh the risks.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The absence of political unity, an indispensable precondition for such a significant undertaking, was laid bare on Monday during a meeting of foreign affairs ministers in Brussels, where several representatives urged fresh sanctions rather than dialogue.
“(Vladimir) Putin is really not interested in real peace talks yet. So we need to put more pressure on Russia in order to change the calculus and make him interested,” Sweden’s Maria Malmer Stenergard said upon arrival.
“What will we discuss? What will be our demands? Can we agree on our demands on Russia?” said Lithuania’s Kęstutis Budrys. “What is our strategy and agenda, and what’s the goal? What’s the end state? It’s not dialogue as dialogue per se.”
Italy’s Antonio Tajani said the EU was “not at war” with Russia and it was “important” to be part of the ongoing negotiations, while Austria’s Beate Meinl-Reisinger noted it was time for Europeans to become active participants through their own team.
“We need to make up our mind,” said Finland’s Elina Valtonen.
The only point on which ministers agreed was that Europeans themselves should pick their envoy. The Kremlin’s suggestion to nominate Gerhard Schröder, the former German chancellor who has worked for Russian energy firms, was unequivocally dismissed.
At the end of the meeting, High Representative Kaja Kallas acknowledged that the topic was not yet mature and required further reflection among governments.
“The EU has always supported attempts to achieve a just and lasting peace,” Kallas said.
“For Europe to take a more active role, we must agree amongst ourselves what we want to talk to Russia about and what our red lines are.”
The High Representative, who previously said the EU should not “humiliate” itself by seeking direct talks with Russia, has been trying to bridge gaps among capitals with a draft document outlining the concessions Moscow should make.
The confidential document will be discussed later this month when foreign ministers meet again for an informal gathering in Cyprus. However, given the considerable divergences, a unified position is unlikely to emerge any time soon.
“We are not there entering the negotiations in any way,” Kallas cautioned. “Right now, we don’t see that Russia is really negotiating in good faith.”
If, how and when
The question of whether the EU should engage directly with Russia to end its war of aggression has been popping up in and out of the conversation since US President Donald Trump unilaterally launched a diplomatic process to end the war in Ukraine.
Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron, who last spoke with Putin in July 2025, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni publicly called on the bloc to change policy, arguing the fate of European security could not be left in American hands.
The debate lost traction after Macron’s advisor, Emmanuel Bonne, travelled to the Kremlin for exploratory talks and was given the cold shoulder.
But it has once again risen to prominence as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, which has shifted Washington’s focus and slowed down the mediation in Ukraine.
Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who seems increasingly frustrated with the White House’s course of action, asked Europeans to take a more active role.
“We need to find a workable diplomatic format, and Europe must be at the table in any talks with Russia,” Zelenskyy said at a summit in Armenia. “It would be good to develop one common European voice for talks with Russia.”
A few days later, European Council President António Costa said there was “potential” for the bloc to negotiate one-on-one with the Kremlin.
“I’m talking with the 27 national leaders to see the best way to organise ourselves and to identify what we need effectively to discuss with Russia when it comes to the right moment to do this,” Costa said in Florence, Italy.
The European Commission also weighed in. “We can see the merit of having one single figure speaking on behalf of the 27,” a spokesperson said.
Both Costa and the Commission were quick to note that direct talks would only make sense once the Kremlin showed willingness to compromise and make concessions. Putin insists that Kyiv give up the entire Donbas region and that the West recognise the occupied territories aslegally Russian — both demands that Zelenskyy firmly rejects.
Brussels is keen to avoid creating the impression that it is attempting to replace Washington, which might give Trump a reason to walk away for good.
On Monday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the EU should not pursue “alternative peace talks” but rather play a “complementary” role in the ongoing process.
Russia’s relentless bombardment of Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, including a kindergarten last week, is another factor that makes officials and diplomats think twice.
Instead, some capitals prefer to wait and weaken Russia’s hand at the negotiating table. The country has begun to show signs of economic strain after 20 rounds of sanctions and was forced to pare down its Victory Day parade over fears of Ukraine’s strikes.
At the same time, Kyiv’s standing has been reinforced by the approval of the EU’s €90 billion assistance loan and the signing of multiple defence deals with Gulf countries.
“Russia must be pushed back to Russia,” Estonia’s Margus Tsahkna said. “Putin is not ready to talk about a lasting and just peace at all.”
Poland will soon host production lines for South Korean tanks. Australia is buying warships from Japan. Canada will send uranium to India, while India offers cruise missiles to Vietnam, and Brazil builds military transport planes for the United Arab Emirates.
All of these deals were sealed in the past few weeks. Each one represents an attempt by middle powers to protect themselves as the conflict in Iran throttles global energy supplies, and as a high-stakes summit between President Trump and Xi Jinping of China looms.
Global polls show the world has little trust in the United States and China. Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi have both used their enormous leverage over trade and security to coerce or punish. And in response, smaller nations are behaving as if they are stuck in “Godzilla” or “Dune” — moving quietly in small groups, trying not to provoke the wrath of petulant giants.
“It’s fifty shades of hedging,” said Richard Heydarian, a Filipino political scientist at Oxford University. Or, as Ja Ian Chong, a security analyst in Singapore put it, “No party wants to cross Beijing and now Washington, too.”
For countries watching from afar, dread and hope hover over the Trump-Xi meeting in Beijing, which is scheduled for this week. In Asia, which has been hit hardest and fastest by oil shortages caused by the war and China’s tight control of oil-product exports, the mood is particularly grim. Interviews with officials, and statements from leaders traveling the globe to secure trade and defense deals, suggest that most middle powers feel overwhelmed by the deteriorating world order.
Many believe the summit carries more potential for harm than help. And Mr. Trump’s gut-driven approach to complex issues is the main source of anxiety.
For months, officials in Asia have worried that the president might be too eager to make a deal with Mr. Xi, ending weapons sales to Taiwan or agreeing to softened policy language that could make it easier for China to undermine the democratic island.
“That would be the biggest nightmare,” said one Taiwanese official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal government matters. He insisted that reduced support from the U.S. was unlikely.
But any concession on Taiwan could lead other American partners to fear abandonment. Beijing’s push for compliance on contested territory elsewhere would be bolstered, from the border with India to the South China Sea.
Vietnamese officials said that if President Trump makes a conciliatory gesture or flatters Xi, even without bigger compromises, China will gain leeway to press harder on smaller countries.
Another concern being discussed across the region: that Mr. Trump might alter long-term security plans in exchange for better economic terms with China.
Mr. Trump’s decision to redirect a carrier strike group from the Pacific and munitions from South Korea for the war in Iran may have created momentum for broader redeployments. When the Pentagon announced it would pull at least 5,000 troops from Germany after Mr. Trump expressed annoyance with the German chancellor, allies in Asia were again reminded how quickly collective deterrence can be weakened.
Mr. Trump has threatened in the past to make troop withdrawals from Japan, which hosts around 53,000 American military personnel — more than any other country — and South Korea, where another 24,000 Americans are stationed. If he could get something big from Mr. Xi for a drawdown, would he turn down the deal?
Analysts noted that plans opposed by China, such as AUKUS, a pact between Australia, England and the U.S. designed to counter Beijing’s influence by equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines and advanced technology, could also be suddenly canceled.
“The sense that U.S. allies have to look to one another because they can no longer look to America is very real,” said Hugh White, a former Australian intelligence official who teaches strategic studies at the Australia National University.
That sentiment is much stronger than “the cautious public language” of national leaders might suggest, he added.
European and Asian officials often talk privately in frank terms about giving up their faith in America, prompting a no-turning-back effort to diversify away from the United States. In casual discussions with reporters, they can sound a lot like Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada, who received a standing ovation in Davos this year for a speech that declared, “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”
But in public, they’re more circumspect. Some officials admit their countries are trying to buy time and evade Mr. Trump’s fits of pique, while continuing the performance of imperial fealty.
South Korean officials have simply expressed resignation over American military diversions, after making clear they felt betrayed in 2004, when President George W. Bush announced plans to move troops from Asia to the war in Iraq. Australia, Taiwan and Japan publicly and repeatedly stress the value of American leadership without caveats — even as U.S. tariffs and the war Mr. Trump started with Iran kneecap their economies.
Walking with Caution
No one wants to be seen stepping out of line.
Japan’s new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has been bolder than most in trying to foster stronger relationships with other countries. Yet even as she crisscrossed the region promoting military cooperation, officials in Tokyo worried about how Washington would view her efforts.
“The Japanese don’t want Takaichi’s security cooperation and tour, especially to Australia, to be seen as a version of Mark Carney,” said Michael J. Green, the author of several books on Japan, and chief executive of the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney.
Others have apparently reached the same conclusion. Mr. Carney’s recent visits to India and Australia did not yield strong statements from their leaders echoing his criticism of great power rivalry or his warning that if middle powers are “not at the table, we’re on the menu.”
At the same time, many countries — including some that are benefiting from the thickening of middle-power bonds — have been careful not to anger the world’s other hegemon, China.
Nations managing their own disputes with Beijing, such as Indonesia, have done less to rally around Japan than some in Tokyo would have liked, since Ms. Takaichi became embroiled in a diplomatic crisis after telling her Parliament that if China attacked Taiwan, Japan could respond militarily.
Vietnamese officials even pressed Ms. Takaichi to avoid directly criticizing China in her speech at a university on May 2 in Hanoi, according to diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions. It is not clear if adjustments were made. Chinese officials later condemned her diplomatic efforts as “war preparation.”
And yet, in a sign of how middle powers are still doing more while saying less, the two countries signed six cooperation agreements, including one on satellite data sharing and another to secure deliveries for Vietnam’s largest oil refinery, potentially easing shortages.
“The U.S. has become more unreliable, so it makes sense to try to develop alternatives,” said Robert O. Keohane, an international relations professor at Princeton University. Even if what’s been formed so far is insufficient, he added, “having a weak alternative is better than having no alternative at all.”
Reporting was contributed by Tung Ngo from Hanoi, Vietnam; Javier C. Hernández from Tokyo; Amy Chang Chien from Taipei, Taiwan; Jim Tankersley from Berlin; Ian Austen from Ottawa; and Matina Stevis-Gridneff from Toronto.
-
New York15 minutes agoAirbnb Turns to Black Leaders in Its Bid to Make a Comeback in New York
-
Detroit, MI45 minutes agoMetro Detroit braces for Frost Advisory, Freeze Warning overnight before rain arrives
-
San Francisco, CA57 minutes ago50 Beagles Rescued From Wisconsin Lab Arrive in Bay Area, SF Activist Faces Felony Charges
-
Dallas, TX1 hour ago
Former Cowboys QB Craig Morton passes away at age 83
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoBrickell Avenue Bridge openings spark rush hour gridlock concerns in downtown Miami
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoWhat we know about accused Memorial Drive gunman Tyler Brown
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoBroncos Ring of Famer Craig Morton, who led Denver to first Super Bowl, dies at 83
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoVictim identified in deadly Seattle beer garden shooting on Lake City Way; suspect sought
