On March 12th Vladimir Putin donned military camouflage to visit his troops in the Kursk region, where his forces seem to be in the final stages of pushing out Ukrainian soldiers from the territory they occupied last August, to huge Russian embarrassment. This TV set-piece, endlessly replayed, was Mr Putin’s first response to Ukraine’s offer of a 30-day ceasefire that had been sealed by America at negotiations in Jeddah a day earlier. As The Economist went to press, Russia was still to disclose its official verdict, but America has restarted the flow of arms and intelligence to Ukraine. The offer has put the ball in Mr Putin’s court, American and Ukrainian officials said. Mr Putin will no doubt whack it back with a counter-proposal.

But he still faces a dilemma: stop fighting without achieving most of his expansive war aims or risk alienating the usually sympathetic Mr Trump and spurring him into giving more support to Ukraine. Similarly at home he must balance between appeasing his pro-war zealots and accommodating growing hopes for peace. Mr Putin’s top goal is self-preservation, so any decision he makes will be guided by that principle, and for all his dictatorial powers he depends on the appearance of public support. Nobody knows what Vladimir Putin will decide, “probably not even himself”, says one Russian business figure.

War bloggers and ultra-patriots in the Russian parliament rushed to reject the ceasefire which, they argue, would allow Ukraine to regroup, resupply and counter-attack. “Why the fuck do we need this?” one blogger wrote. But according to a recent survey by the Levada Centre, a Russian polling organisation, Russians who prefer peace talks now outnumber those who favour continuing the war by 61% to 31%, an all-time high. This does not mean Russians are prepared to give much away. Given Russia’s grinding advances, and Mr Trump’s bullying of Ukraine, another poll found that 76% expected a Russian victory. In other words, a majority of Russians may want peace but expect it to be on the Kremlin’s terms.

Mr Putin’s objectives for his three-year-old war include the annexation of four Ukrainian provinces, the neutrality of Ukraine, a reduction of its armed forces and dealing with the “root causes” of the conflict, implying a retreat of NATO forces from much of eastern Europe. All of which suggests he is playing a much bigger game, seeing the war as a means of ultimately forcing America out of Europe.

Mr Putin will probably try to set conditions for any ceasefire, perhaps including a fresh halt to American supplies for Ukraine, and may seek to delay it at least until he has secured a summit with Mr Trump. Mr Rubio, however, has said the proposal is for an unconditional ceasefire, followed by immediate negotiations on an enduring peace. “If their response is yes, then we know we’ve made real progress and there’s a real chance of peace. If their response is no, it’ll be highly unfortunate, and it’d make their intentions clear.” He would not spell out the consequences of a Russian refusal, beyond saying: “We’ll have to examine everything.”

His comments will reassure Mr Zelensky, who worked hard to repair the breach, with intense help from Britain and France, after Mr Trump halted military aid and most intelligence sharing. On March 4th Mr Zelensky wrote an assuaging letter to the American president describing the White House bust-up as “regrettable”.

In Jeddah, away from the febrile politics of Washington, the Ukrainians proposed a partial ceasefire to halt attacks from the air or at sea. The Americans countered with the idea of a full but temporary ceasefire, renewable if both combatants agree to it. After consultations with Mr Zelensky, the Ukrainian team accepted. Within hours, military aid and intelligence sharing was restored, recounted one participant. A joint deal to extract Ukrainian minerals is expected to be finalised soon.

Mr Zelensky had hitherto resisted any ceasefire without first securing an explicit American security guarantee, fearing that Russia would use it to prepare for a future war. Mr Rubio appeared to accept that Ukraine needs “long-term security”. America, he insisted, was “not interested” in a peace that collapses after a few years. The real question was: “Can Ukraine create a sufficient deterrent against future aggression, against future attack, against future invasion? Because every country in the world has a right to defend themselves, and no one can dispute that.”

A central element would be a mooted European “reassurance” force, perhaps 20,000-30,000 strong, that would be deployed to Ukraine if a lasting ceasefire is reached. Even if no American troops are sent, Britain has pushed for an American “backstop”, ie, some assurance that the United States would help defend the Europeans if they were attacked by Russia.

Despite occasional threats of additional economic sanctions against the Kremlin, Mr Trump has for the most part put extreme pressure on Ukraine while easing it on Russia. His administration no longer labels Russia as the aggressor, voted with it at the United Nations and, reportedly, has stopped cyber-attacks against Russia. Mr Trump has also yielded on important points: for instance, saying Ukraine would not recover all of its lost territory and ruling out its hopes of joining NATO. There is little to stop him again blaming Ukraine as the recalcitrant party when the next problem appears.

For now, though, Ukraine has regained some initiative. Eric Ciaramella of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an American think-tank, argues that a “clean ceasefire” benefits the Ukrainians, allowing them to rest without making up-front concessions. At the diplomatic table as in the trenches, short-term success is no guarantee of victory. But Ukraine has staved off disaster, and has survived to fight another day. ■

To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up to Café Europa, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.