‘A cruel joke’: Zelensky blasts Putin’s Easter ceasefire while bombs fall

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected Russian President Vladimir Putin’s call for a temporary Easter truce, labelling it a calculated move to manipulate global perception while continuing to endanger lives on the battlefield. The announcement from Moscow, which proposed a unilateral 30-hour ceasefire beginning 6 p.m. local time on April 19 and lasting until midnight on Easter Sunday, has drawn condemnation from Kyiv and cautious skepticism from international observers.

The Ukrainian government responded with immediate distrust, stating that while Russia declared a pause in hostilities, its military operations never ceased. According to Zelenskyy, the supposed ceasefire was “another attempt to play with human lives,” reflecting what he described as a pattern of duplicity in Russia’s wartime tactics. His administration reported that Russian artillery shelling, drone attacks, and missile strikes persisted across multiple regions, including the eastern and southern frontlines, even during the truce period.

Why did Zelensky dismiss the ceasefire proposal?

President Zelenskyy’s harsh dismissal of the truce was grounded in what Ukrainian officials claim is a consistent Russian strategy of using ceasefire announcements as a cover for rearming and repositioning forces. In his address, Zelenskyy reiterated that Ukraine had earlier accepted a U.S.-backed proposal for a broader 30-day ceasefire, which Russia declined to join. This, he argued, highlighted the performative nature of Moscow’s unilateral declaration.

While Russia framed the temporary truce as a humanitarian gesture in observance of Orthodox Easter, Ukraine and its allies saw it as a geopolitical maneuver designed to curry favour with the international community. Zelenskyy stated that his government would only consider reciprocating such measures if there was a genuine and verified halt to hostilities on the Russian side.

Was there any actual ceasefire on the ground?

Despite Russia’s official ceasefire declaration, air raid sirens rang out across Ukraine throughout the day on April 20. Ukrainian military reports indicated that attacks involving kamikaze drones and guided bombs occurred even as the truce window was active. Ukrainian forces reported that there was no reduction in combat activity along the frontlines, particularly near Avdiivka and Kharkiv, areas that have remained under consistent fire in recent weeks.

The Ukrainian Air Force also intercepted multiple drone strikes, further reinforcing claims that Moscow’s ceasefire was symbolic at best. Civilian infrastructure reportedly suffered damage in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts during the truce hours, further eroding any credibility attached to Putin’s announcement.

What’s the international reaction to the Easter truce?

Global response to Putin’s truce has been cautiously skeptical. European Union spokesperson Anitta Hipper noted that while any steps toward peace are welcome, the bloc remained doubtful about Moscow’s sincerity, citing Russia’s ongoing role as the aggressor. The United Kingdom echoed those concerns, urging Russia to show meaningful intent by halting attacks rather than issuing symbolic gestures.

Meanwhile, analysts suggested that the ceasefire declaration could be aimed at deflecting blame in the event of continued hostilities, as well as trying to position Russia as a willing participant in hypothetical peace talks. Observers also noted the alignment of the truce with a significant prisoner swap event, hinting at a possible tactical public relations move.

Did the prisoner swap influence the timing?

Coinciding with the ceasefire, Russia and Ukraine carried out their largest prisoner exchange since the war began. Ukraine confirmed the return of 277 soldiers, while 246 Russian prisoners of war were handed back by Kyiv. The United Arab Emirates played a mediating role in this exchange, which unfolded as the Easter ceasefire took effect.

While the swap itself was seen as a constructive development, Ukrainian officials remained wary of associating it with any shift in Russia’s long-term strategy. Kyiv emphasized that the prisoner release, though welcome, should not overshadow the need for an authentic, monitored, and multilateral ceasefire.

Is Putin using ceasefires for global optics?

Many defense analysts suggest that Moscow’s repeated use of temporary ceasefires—whether during religious holidays or diplomatic summits—is part of a broader effort to manipulate international optics. By declaring unilateral pauses, Russia can claim moral high ground while continuing attacks in practice. This strategy also aims to paint Ukraine as the obstacle to peace if Kyiv refuses to engage with unverified Russian proposals.

Ukrainian officials maintain that such tactics are designed to erode global support for Ukraine and pressure Kyiv into premature negotiations. They argue that only a verifiable, multilateral ceasefire endorsed by international partners can create the conditions necessary for genuine peace.

What does this mean for peace efforts?

The rejection of Russia’s truce by Kyiv, and the failure of Moscow to halt its attacks, underscores the continued mistrust between both sides and the broader challenge facing mediators. While the international community continues to explore diplomatic pathways, any meaningful ceasefire appears contingent on more than symbolic declarations.

As the war enters its third year, both sides have entrenched positions, and symbolic gestures without tangible action are unlikely to yield any significant progress. Ukraine’s stance remains that peace cannot be brokered through half-measures or public relations maneuvers but must be built on transparency, international guarantees, and mutual accountability.