A three-day ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump expired at midnight on Tuesday with neither side willing to concede that the other had honoured its terms. The brief halt in hostilities, timed to coincide with Russia’s Victory Day commemorations, was supposed to pave the way for a broader diplomatic opening. Instead, it has left both capitals entrenched in familiar recriminations and the front line as volatile as before.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used his evening address on the truce’s final day to declare that “there has been no silence on the front”, reporting nearly 150 clashes and continued drone strikes in the southern and eastern oblasts. Moscow countered that Ukrainian forces had committed tens of thousands of ceasefire violations, ranging from artillery fire to drone attacks. The pattern of accusation and denial was predictable.

Yet the episode carries weight because it was the first test of whether the Trump administration’s personal diplomacy could alter the trajectory of a war now in its fifth year. Viewed from Washington, the ceasefire was a modest but necessary first step. The White House had hoped it might be extended and perhaps linked to a large-scale prisoner exchange — Trump himself mentioned a “1000 for 1000” swap.

Neither prospect materialised. Russian officials insisted they had scrupulously observed the truce, while the defence ministry in Moscow claimed its forces had refrained from striking Ukrainian positions. On the ground, however, the respite was partial at best.

In and around Zaporizhzhia, residents described “ordinary days” punctuated by explosions and air-raid alerts. At least three civilians were killed in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, and five more were wounded in Kharkiv. Long-range strikes did pause, offering Ukrainian cities and Russian refineries a rare period of calm.

But short-range combat along the sprawling front never stopped. Analysts in London note that this asymmetry — a halt to strategic bombardment alongside continued tactical fighting — reflects the fundamental impasse. Neither side is willing to cede ground, and both see the ceasefire less as a genuine peace initiative than as a tactical pause.

Zelensky accused Moscow of “preparing new attacks” and of having no intention to end the war. President Vladimir Putin, by contrast, told state media that the conflict was “arriving at its conclusion”, a statement that echoed earlier rhetorical pivots without producing concrete moves toward negotiations. The forward outlook is grimly familiar.

The failure of a short, high-profile truce does not close the door on future diplomatic interventions — Trump has signalled he remains engaged — but it dramatically raises the bar for any follow-up. Each side now enters the next phase with hardened positions, more battlefield data, and even less trust. The war’s rhythm of attrition, punctuated by fleeting ceasefires, shows no sign of yielding to a durable peace.