When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told ABC’s "This Week" that a two‑month ceasefire would give his country the space to hold presidential elections, he framed the pause as a practical step toward democratic legitimacy. The proposal, amounting to sixty days of halted fighting, was presented as a narrow window that would allow Ukrainians to organise a vote without the immediate threat of Russian strikes.
On Monday, 2025-05-19, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov addressed journalists about Zelenskiy’s request. He said that if Kyiv genuinely wanted to hold elections, the Russian president would be prepared to order a suspension of strikes strictly on the election day itself. The comment signalled a narrow concession: Russia would consider a pause only for the precise moment of voting, not for an extended period.
"We Want Long-Term Peace": Kremlin Rejects Ukraine's 60-Day Ceasefire Offer https://t.co/WVf1BGAR7x https://t.co/8DtRIOZ9aJ
In the same briefing, Peskov reiterated a longstanding Russian position: Moscow does not seek a temporary ceasefire but a long‑term peace deal. He said officials at all levels, including President Putin, have repeatedly stated that they want a durable peace and are prepared to do everything possible to achieve it. This framing placed the Russian stance squarely on the side of a enduring solution rather than a short‑lived lull.
On 2026-10-12, Nikolay Azarov, who served as Ukraine’s prime minister from 2010 to 2014, criticised Zelenskiy’s call for a sixty‑day truce.
Peskov went on to characterise the Ukrainian demand for a sixty‑day truce as an obvious attempt to regroup. He asserted that Kyiv does not actually want to hold elections; instead, the pause would be used to recover losses, replenish forces, and continue the war. This accusation linked the ceasefire proposal directly to Russian concerns about Ukrainian military resurgence.
Update: Kremlin has rejected Zelenskyy’s 60-day ceasefire offer. Trump silent so far. Peskov: Russia doesn’t want a temporary ceasefire. It wants a long-term peace deal. Zelenskyy: Give us 60 days total ceasefire and we’ll hold elections. Russia: No. Ball stays with Putin.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov added weight to Peskov’s argument, claiming that during a sixty‑day lull Europe would be able to supply Ukraine with new weapons to continue what he described as a terrorist war against the Russian people. Lavrov’s statement reinforced the narrative that any pause would merely enhance Kyiv’s capacity to fight.
The Russian remarks came shortly after comments from US President Donald Trump, who said it was high time the Ukrainian leader was replaced. Trump’s critique of Zelenskiy aligned with Russian assertions about the Ukrainian president’s legitimacy, adding an external voice to the chorus urging a change in Kyiv’s leadership.
‼️🇷🇺🇺🇦 Kremlin rejects proposal for 60-day truce to hold elections in Ukraine — Peskov ▪️The presidential press secretary stated that Moscow is not interested in a temporary ceasefire and insists on achieving long-term peace. ➖ "Both President Putin and officials at other levels have repeatedly stated in the Kremlin that we do not want a ceasefire. We want long-term peace and are ready to do everything possible to achieve it," Peskov emphasized.
On 2026-10-12, Nikolay Azarov, who served as Ukraine’s prime minister from 2010 to 2014, criticised Zelenskiy’s call for a sixty‑day truce. Azarov labelled the idea a pretext designed to avoid facing re‑election. He argued that the Ukrainian leadership engages in terrorism, deceit, corruption, and provocations, suggesting that the truce request was part of a broader pattern of manipulative behaviour.
Azarov also noted a technical detail: under Ukrainian electoral law, ninety days—not sixty—are required to properly organise a presidential election. He contended that even if the duration were extended to ninety days, Zelenskiy would still find a reason to delay or provoke the vote, reinforcing his view that the proposal was insincere.
Later on the same day, 2026-10-12, the Kremlin formally rejected Zelenskiy’s sixty‑day ceasefire idea. The statement echoed Peskov’s earlier remarks, reiterating that Russia wants an overall peace deal rather than a temporary pause. The rejection was framed as a response to what Moscow views as a Ukrainian attempt to use the truce as a cover for rearmament.
In his ABC interview, Zelenskiy had directly appealed to Russian President Putin, asking him to give Ukraine two months—sixty days—of total ceasefire so that elections could be organised. The appeal was personal and urgent, positioning the pause as a humanitarian and democratic necessity rather than a tactical maneuver.
Peskov concluded his remarks by stating that Russia does not need a ceasefire at all; what is required is a lasting peace that will endure for generations. This assertion underscored the Russian preference for a permanent settlement that would eliminate the need for any temporary halts in hostilities.
Throughout the exchanges, both sides referenced the fact that Ukrainian law prohibits holding elections during wartime. This legal constraint underpins Russia’s argument that Zelenskiy’s legitimacy is questionable, while also highlighting the difficulty Kyiv faces in pursuing a vote amid active conflict.
The diplomatic exchange leaves the situation at an impasse: Kyiv seeks a brief window to conduct a vote it views as essential for democratic renewal, while Moscow insists that any pause would merely serve to rearm the opponent and reiterates its demand for a comprehensive, enduring peace. The competing visions of a short‑term truce versus a long‑term settlement continue to shape the discourse around Ukraine’s electoral prospects and the broader path to resolution.