Ukraine ready to observe ceasefire in air strikes until Monday

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared on September 4 that Ukraine would suspend air strikes on Russian cities through the weekend, timing the pause to coincide with a high-stakes diplomatic shuttle by US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The move puts the ball squarely in Moscow’s court, with Zelenskyy explicitly calling on Russia to match the gesture.

Cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, which have faced Ukrainian drone and missile strikes with increasing frequency over the past year, would be covered under the temporary halt.

The diplomatic chess match

Witkoff and Kushner were scheduled to arrive in Moscow on September 5-6, then travel to Kyiv on September 6 for parallel discussions with both warring governments.

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded with his own gesture, ordering a three-day cessation of strikes on Kyiv beginning at midnight on September 5.

Ukrainian intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov noted that Russia had not formally accepted the proposed mutual pause conditions. Military operations reportedly continued in certain areas even as the diplomatic overtures were being made public.

Earlier in 2026, both sides agreed to pauses on energy infrastructure strikes as part of broader diplomatic efforts. None of those translated into a comprehensive ceasefire.

What makes this round different

Zelenskyy’s willingness to announce the pause publicly, before securing a formal Russian commitment, frames Ukraine as the party willing to make concessions for peace, shifting diplomatic pressure onto Moscow.

Putin’s three-day order on Kyiv is narrower in scope than what Zelenskyy proposed. The Ukrainian pause covers strikes on multiple Russian cities. The Russian pause covers one Ukrainian city.

Why the Monday deadline matters

The pause runs through Monday, which gives Witkoff and Kushner roughly 72 hours to conduct their meetings and report back to Washington.

The war is now well into its fourth year. Previous diplomatic efforts in 2026 produced incremental results at best. Pauses on energy infrastructure strikes were observed unevenly, and broader frameworks for negotiation never materialized into anything binding.

Budanov’s observation that Russia had not formally responded to the mutual pause conditions is perhaps the most telling detail. A formal acceptance would have signaled genuine willingness to engage. Silence, paired with continued operations in some areas, suggests Moscow views the pause as a tactical opportunity rather than a diplomatic commitment.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.