One Small Step
How a temporary Victory Day ceasefire benefited Russia, Ukraine, and the world while also delivering a much-needed diplomatic win for President Trump.
It has been said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step. There is a great deal of truth in that statement, both literally and philosophically. Difficult journeys and complex missions rarely begin with spectacle. They are the result of careful planning broken into smaller parts, and ultimately every worthy undertaking begins with a single step.
For that reason, it is important to recognize the value of small victories, not only after success has been achieved, but especially at the beginning of the quest. Acknowledging early progress motivates people to continue down what is often an exhausting and uncertain road ahead. Genuine affirmation instills confidence, builds trust, and allows extraordinary outcomes to occur.
This is why the May 9th three-day ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine brokered by President Trump should be viewed as a diplomatic achievement. Though limited in duration, and in many ways facilitated by Russia itself, the ceasefire still represented a meaningful first step toward reducing tensions, opening channels of communication, and demonstrating that progress, however incremental, remains worthwhile.
The Great Patriotic War and Victory Day
For the Russian people, the Great Patriotic War signifies the part of World War II fought against Nazi Germany on Soviet soil. The German offensive unleashed against the USSR, began on June 22,1941 when Nazi forces launched Operation Barbarossa, the largest land invasion in history. This unprecedented military campaign continued until 1945 and is regarded as the defining event of the modern Russian nation.
Despite catastrophic losses, starvation, and being forced to endure unspeakable atrocities, the Soviet Union was able to preservere and late in the evening on May 8th, 1945, Nazi Germany finally surrendered bringing that devastating chapter of World War II to a close. Because the surrender technically occurred after midnight in Moscow, Russia commemorates the Nazi surrender with an annual Victory Day each year on May 9th.
At its core, Victory Day memorializes the Great Patriotic War and honors the more than 27 million Russians who lost their lives defending their country against Nazi brutality.
Each year, Russia marks the occasion through a number of important traditions and ceremonies. Large military parades are held in Moscow and in other cities, featuring marching soldiers, military bands, displays of weaponry, keynote speeches from elected officials, and more.
One of the most recognizable traditions is the adornment of the orange and black St. George Ribbon, which represents fire and gunpowder and is worn and displayed throughout the country.
Another deeply meaningful Victory Day event is the Immortal Regiment march, during which millions of people carry photographs of relatives who died fighting the Nazis. This in particular serves as a powerful reminder that the sacrifices of past generations remain deeply personal to families across the country.
Citizens also express gratitude directly to veterans by offering flowers and thanking them for their service.
The influence of the Great Patriotic War and subsequent Victory Day celebrations on the Russian people and the country’s national identity cannot be overstated. As such, the Putin administration, announced that any disruption of the May 9th celebrations as a result of the current war with Ukraine would be met with a massive retaliatory response directed at Kiev.
From the Russian perspective, any attack on such a sacred day is not to be viewed merely as a military action, but as a direct insult to the memory of millions who died during World War II.
On the other side, many Ukrainians do not feel the least bit compelled to pause military operations simply because Russia is observing a national holiday during an ongoing conflict. The Ukrainian position is not difficult to understand in the context of war. However, the optics surrounding a potential disruption of Victory Day are particularly sensitive and carry consequences far beyond the battlefield.
This is because to the Russians, Victory Day is about beating the Nazis. Where this becomes controversial is that the current Ukrainian government is still very much tied to Nazi elements from WWII. To give you some insight into this troubling situation, let’s revisit my June 8th, 2025 article where it was discussed.
“To understand Ukraine’s relationship with Nazis, you have to understand Stefan Bandera. Bandera was a Ukrainian nationalist who promoted ethnic cleansing and revolutionary violence. He led a group called OUN B that worked alongside Nazi Germany during World War II. The group published anti Semitic propaganda and carried out massacres of Jews and Poles that are now considered acts of genocide.
Bandera died in 1959 but is still honored as a hero in Ukraine today. Streets and statues are named after him. There is even a national award in his honor.
Modern followers of Bandera are called Banderites. They still exist in large numbers across Ukraine and even inside the government. The most aggressive of them formed the Azov Battalion in 2014. That militia helped overthrow the elected government and install the current regime led by Zelensky.”
Due to the ongoing Ukrainian support of the Bandera legacy and aligned nationalist movements during World War II, Russians view any Ukrainian attack on Moscow, especially on Victory Day, to be in effect an attack by Nazi-aligned forces. If this were to occur during a Victory Day ceremony, the overwhelming majority of Russians would demand a severe, disproportionate military response on Kiev.
Although Americans are rarely taught in depth about Victory Day, the Great Patriotic War, or the enormous Soviet contribution to defeating Nazi Germany, we should still be capable of understanding this Russian position better than many might assume.
As anyone from the United States can attest, Americans possess a visceral hatred of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. From an early age, we are taught about the horrors of the Holocaust and the atrocities committed against Jews, Poles, and countless others during World War II. It is difficult to think of another historical movement or regime that Americans universally despise more than the Nazis.
At the same time, however, the American experience with Nazism is largely indirect. The overwhelming majority of American families did not personally experience Nazi occupation, invasion, or loss. Even so, nearly a century later, the emotional and moral condemnation of Nazism in the United States remains as strong as ever.
Because of that, Americans should be able to approach the Russian perspective with a high degree of understanding and compassion. For Russia and the broader Soviet population, the suffering inflicted by Nazi Germany is not distant or abstract. It is immediate, personal, and catastrophic on a scale almost impossible to comprehend. More than 27 million Soviet citizens died during the war, many in unimaginably brutal circumstances. Nearly every family across the Soviet Union lost someone, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or background.
For the Russian people, the memory of the war is not simply history. It is part of their national identity and collective memory. Victory Day is not viewed merely as a military celebration, but as a sacred remembrance of survival, sacrifice, and the defeat of a regime that brought unimaginable suffering upon their families.
Whether one agrees with modern Russian politics or not, understanding the depth of that historical trauma is important. The Russian view of Nazism is shaped not only by ideology or symbolism, but by the direct loss endured by millions of families. That reality helps explain why issues connected to World War II, the Great Patriotic War, Victory Day, and the legacy of Nazism remain profoundly sensitive within Russian society to this day.
Contentious Lead-Up to May 9th, 2026.
To further understand the complex situation that was in play, it is necessary to examine the chaotic lead up to this year’s May 9th Victory Day celebration.
As we all know, the United States has played a major role behind the scenes throughout the conflict in Ukraine, particularly in supporting the Ukrainian side through military aid, intelligence, training, and strategic coordination.
Over the past several months, however, there has been a noticeable shift in American strategic focus and attention away from Ukraine and increasingly toward tensions involving Iran. As that shift occurred, diplomatic momentum with Ukraine began to slow significantly and it became widely understood that providing arms to Ukraine since 2022 has put an unwelcome strain on American weapons stockpiles.
As the Victory Day celebration approached, particularly in early May, tensions escalated rapidly through a series of developments that unfolded almost one after another. While the precise sequence is less important than the overall atmosphere they created, the cumulative effect was one of growing instability and heightened risk.
One major development was the approval by the Trump administration of a weapons package worth approximately 337 million dollars for Ukraine. Although the United States framed the arrangement as a sale rather than direct aid, it nevertheless contributed to prolonging the conflict and increasing tensions at a sensitive moment. This is especially true given that this most recent arms sale was for kits that convert regular bombs into GPS-guided precision weapons.
Around this same time, President Zelensky intensified his rhetoric regarding the Victory Day celebrations suggesting that Russia should be concerned about potential drone attacks or disruptions on the 9th. These remarks were taken extremely seriously by Russia and the Putin administration publically responded in a manner that showed they were unwilling to tolerate even the possibility of disruption during Victory Day. In fact, the issue was serious enough for the Russians that they brought it up during direct communications between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump on April 29th. The conversation, which reportedly mostly focused on tensions involving Iran, also carried a warning from the Russian side that any attack targeting Moscow on Victory Day would trigger a severe escalation, including direct strikes on central government targets in Kiev.
Upon listening to what Putin had to say, President Trump, to his credit, reportedly began engaging in back-channel diplomacy in an effort to calm the situation and prevent further escalation. During this same period, both Russia and Ukraine floated temporary ceasefire proposals as negotiations continued behind the scenes.
Despite ongoing discussions, the days leading up to May 9th remained highly volatile. Ukrainian drones were still reportedly operating within Russian airspace, and Russian officials dramatically escalated their rhetoric and publicly warned that if the Victory Day celebrations were disrupted, the response would be severe. At one point, statements were even made advising foreign diplomats to leave Kiev due to the possibility of a major retaliatory strike. Maria Zakharova stated:
“The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly urges the authorities of your country...to treat this statement with the utmost responsibility and ensure the timely evacuation from the city of Kiev of the personnel of diplomatic and other representations in connection with the inevitability of a retaliatory strike on Kyiv by Russia’s Armed Forces,”
Whether intended as deterrence or political signaling, such warnings represented a serious escalation in tone and generated significant international concern.
As the situation intensified, it appeared increasingly likely that a disruption during the Victory Day celebrations, particularly in Moscow, was likely and that the subsequent response would trigger a dangerous new phase in the conflict.
Ultimately, however, diplomacy prevailed. Utilizing good-faith behind the scenes communication, President Trump helped facilitate a three-day ceasefire running from May 9th through May 11th.
Why did it work and why does it matter?
Although the ceasefire was only a temporary diplomatic arrangement and certainly not a long-term peace agreement, it is worth examining why it represented a meaningful win for everyone involved.
From President Trump’s perspective, the significance is fairly obvious. The last several months have been politically chaotic, with few clear victories either domestically or internationally. Given declining polling numbers and the reality of upcoming midterm elections, any successful diplomatic outcome carries political value whether one believes electoral considerations should influence policy or not.
More importantly, however, this should be viewed as a positive development for a more fundamental reason. Any action that reduces tensions, prevents escalation, and creates even a brief period of peace is something worth recognizing. In this instance, Trump stepped in during a rapidly deteriorating situation and helped facilitate an outcome that lowered the immediate risk of catastrophic escalation. For that, he deserves credit.
As for Russia, the benefits of this ceasefire were multifaceted. Of greatest importance was the fact that the ceasefire allowed the country to conduct its Victory Day celebrations without disruption. Given the immense emotional, historical, and symbolic significance of May 9th to the Russian people, avoiding attacks or interruptions during the commemorations was a major win.
Additionally, the ceasefire agreement also gave Russia a way to avoid carrying out the severe retaliatory escalation that its officials had openly warned about in the days leading up to the 9th. Had Moscow been attacked during Victory Day celebrations, the likelihood of a devastating response against Kiev appeared certain. By preventing that scenario, the ceasefire helped Russia avoid entering a much more dangerous phase of the conflict.
A final major benefit for Russia was the prisoner exchange that accompanied the agreement. One thousand prisoners from each side were returned, and from the Russian perspective this was especially significant because it involved most of the remaining Russian prisoners of war held by Ukraine. While Ukraine also benefited from the return of its own personnel, Russia appeared to come away from the exchange in a more favorable position.
For Ukraine, the ceasefire also served an important purpose. It provided President Zelensky with a diplomatic off ramp from his increasingly aggressive rhetoric surrounding potential attacks during Victory Day. More importantly, it helped avert the possibility of massive retaliatory strikes on Kiev that could have caused severe infrastructure damage, civilian casualties, and potentially even the deaths of foreign diplomatic personnel or government officials.
For the wider world, the agreement mattered because it clearly demonstrated that even in highly volatile and emotionally charged situations, diplomacy can still function.
Something Deeper
Perhaps most importantly, the situation may reveal something larger about the changing nature of global politics and American decision making. One of the most interesting questions surrounding the episode is why President Trump chose de-escalation in this instance when recent months have often been characterized by more confrontational rhetoric and policies.
Part of the answer certainly lies in the seriousness of the moment itself. Russian officials were openly communicating red lines, Zelensky’s rhetoric was escalating, and European governments appeared unwilling to calm the situation. The likelihood of a direct strike on central Kiev was no longer remote. President Trump, and his advisors, certainly recognized that events were approaching a point where miscalculation could produce consequences that would spiral far beyond anyone’s control and anyone responsible would want to prevent that from happening.
But there may also be a deeper explanation. Increasingly, the world appears to be operating in a genuinely multipolar environment rather than within the unipolar architecture that existed until recently. In the unipolar system, America would impose outcomes largely on its own terms because no rival power could seriously challenge its dominance. In a multipolar environment, however, other major powers possess the ability to enforce red lines, resist pressure, and shape events independently.
What makes this moment significant is that the Trump administration appeared, whether consciously or instinctively, to recognize that reality. Rather than assuming unlimited leverage, the situation was approached with an understanding that Russia was signaling a firm boundary that could not simply be ignored without serious risk.
In that sense, this ceasefire represents the first historical instance of an American administration responding to a crisis with a practical understanding and acceptance of a multipolar world order.
Whether intentional or not, it reflected an acknowledgment that stability in the modern era will increasingly depend on negotiation, restraint, and the management of competing powers rather than unilateral escalation.
At the end of the day, what appeared to be a situation rapidly moving toward a catastrophic kinetic crisis between Russia and Ukraine was ultimately avoided, at least in part due to the restraint and actions of not only Russia, but also President Donald Trump.
The conflict itself is obviously far from over, and the fighting will likely continue, if it has not already resumed. Yet despite that reality, this moment still offered an important reminder that diplomacy, dialogue, and constructive engagement between nations is not just possible during periods of extreme tension, but remains the proper course of action.
In a world increasingly shaped by escalation, distrust, and geopolitical rivalry, the fact that Donald Trump of all people, was able to step back from the brink, even temporarily, matters. It demonstrates that communication still has value, that restraint can still prevail, and that peaceful outcomes are not entirely beyond reach.
As I wrote earlier, progress does not begin with sweeping treaties or historic ceremonies. It begins with something much smaller. A brief three-day pause. A prisoner exchange. A willingness to listen instead of escalate. Because as history has demonstrated time and time again, meaningful advancement always starts off the same way. It begins with One Small Step.
As always, I thank you for your continued support and readership.
Sincerely,
Jon Kurpis
If you enjoyed this article and are not already a free subscriber, please subscribe to the Jon Kurpis Substack today.
DISCLAIMER
The Jon Kurpis Substack is a personal platform and reflects only my individual thoughts, opinions, and perspectives. Nothing published here should be interpreted as official communication or correspondence in my capacity as an elected official. The views expressed do not represent the positions of any municipality, governing body, political party, or any other elected official or government entity.