**US Proposes 30-Day Ceasefire with Russia—Key Terms and Potential Implications**

The U.S. ceasefire proposal seeks to halt hostilities in Ukraine for 30 days, merging military assistance with diplomatic endeavors, but faces skepticism about its efficacy and risks for Ukraine.

As dawn broke over Jeddah, high-ranking officials aboard a U.S. government aircraft felt buoyed by accomplishments amidst the ongoing strife in Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had just finalized negotiations that would announce an American-led initiative for a "prompt" 30-day ceasefire with Russia. In exchange for Russia's agreement, the U.S. will restore military support and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, highlighting a significant pivot towards peace—at least on the surface.

Rubio expressed optimism on the journey back to North America, stating, "We envision a world where neither side fires a shot—this is about opening dialogues for lasting peace.” The ceasefire proposal arrives at a critical juncture for Ukraine, particularly for President Volodymyr Zelensky, who faced severe backlash during a recent Oval Office meeting with Trump and Vice-President JD Vance.

While for the U.S., this ceasefire initiative aligns with President Trump's desire to de-escalate the conflict, there are valid concerns about its execution. Critics warn that rushing a ceasefire could inadvertently solidify Russia's gains rather than restore Ukrainian sovereignty. With the proposal set to be presented to Moscow imminently, the U.S. aims to pressure Russia into accepting the offer—a move that some believe might lead to unfavorable conditions for Ukraine.

Rubio's statements convey a pressing urgency for an "immediate" cessation of violence, but experts emphasize that hasty settlements can compromise long-term security. Previous agreements, such as the Minsk accords, were breached by Russia, an event Zelensky has highlighted as pivotal in his mistrust. Despite these hesitations, Trump remains unyielding, asserting that Russia has no choice but to comply under the current geopolitical circumstances.

A critical aspect of the proposal is the lifting of restrictions on intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a move designed to enhance its defense capabilities against Russia. This resumption of military aid, valued at approximately $2 billion monthly, signals a recognition of Ukraine's needs while attempting to bolster Trump’s peace strategy.

However, concerns remain over the security guarantees for Ukraine, particularly regarding long-term strategies against potential breaches of a ceasefire. The dual nature of the negotiations—whether focusing on U.S. security commitments or on achieving a sustainable resolution with Russia—remains ambiguous, casting doubts on its overall effectiveness.

Furthermore, an agreement on Ukraine's critical mineral resources, once sidelined, is now included, aimed at expanding U.S. economic interests in the nation and potentially serving as a deterrent to further Russian aggression. Yet past experiences remind stakeholders that economic ties alone have historically failed to secure peace.

Despite Zelensky's expressed gratitude towards Trump, the evolving dynamics within this ceasefire plan indicate ongoing complexities in U.S.-Ukraine relations, underscoring the notion that intricate negotiations are never entirely settled in the shifting landscape of Trump's foreign policy. As both parties anticipate Russia's reaction to this ceasefire proposal, the future path remains uncertain.