The Fort Worth Press - Ukraine: Problem with the ceasefire?

USD -
AED 3.672704
AFN 70.432593
ALL 91.050584
AMD 390.569924
ANG 1.798032
AOA 912.000367
ARS 1063.861021
AUD 1.579779
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.70397
BAM 1.790616
BBD 2.014374
BDT 121.21767
BGN 1.790616
BHD 0.376104
BIF 2956.099794
BMD 1
BND 1.331563
BOB 6.894026
BRL 5.745604
BSD 0.997665
BTN 86.717327
BWP 13.592126
BYN 3.264912
BYR 19600
BZD 2.003937
CAD 1.43865
CDF 2876.000362
CHF 0.882751
CLF 0.024225
CLP 929.613184
CNY 7.23785
CNH 7.239504
COP 4115.44976
CRC 498.420691
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 100.952163
CZK 22.998504
DJF 177.651637
DKK 6.858404
DOP 62.732891
DZD 133.115129
EGP 50.468299
ERN 15
ETB 131.0374
EUR 0.91555
FJD 2.29104
FKP 0.77422
GBP 0.772648
GEL 2.77504
GGP 0.77422
GHS 15.463493
GIP 0.77422
GMD 72.000355
GNF 8627.1458
GTQ 7.691463
GYD 208.725109
HKD 7.772804
HNL 25.514305
HRK 6.925804
HTG 130.840009
HUF 367.030388
IDR 16328
ILS 3.646745
IMP 0.77422
INR 86.946504
IQD 1306.935225
IRR 42100.000352
ISK 134.460386
JEP 0.77422
JMD 156.237125
JOD 0.70904
JPY 148.63504
KES 129.192035
KGS 87.450384
KHR 3997.253376
KMF 451.850384
KPW 900.023485
KRW 1451.050383
KWD 0.30807
KYD 0.831403
KZT 499.995422
LAK 21611.352712
LBP 89388.784619
LKR 295.701534
LRD 199.523919
LSL 18.151705
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 4.80293
MAD 9.65539
MDL 17.753262
MGA 4651.865415
MKD 56.333257
MMK 2098.614161
MNT 3474.306106
MOP 7.986542
MRU 39.645686
MUR 45.150378
MVR 15.410378
MWK 1729.915312
MXN 19.929504
MYR 4.446504
MZN 63.903729
NAD 18.151705
NGN 1553.770377
NIO 36.713207
NOK 10.755555
NPR 138.747539
NZD 1.738375
OMR 0.38363
PAB 0.997665
PEN 3.659693
PGK 4.10071
PHP 57.322038
PKR 279.464591
PLN 3.819181
PYG 7921.263447
QAR 3.636164
RON 4.574304
RSD 107.310597
RUB 85.145342
RWF 1401.419089
SAR 3.737057
SBD 8.411149
SCR 14.325475
SDG 601.000339
SEK 10.129415
SGD 1.337504
SHP 0.785843
SLE 22.830371
SLL 20969.501083
SOS 570.19913
SRD 36.319038
STD 20697.981008
SVC 8.729686
SYP 13002.287114
SZL 18.157931
THB 33.631038
TJS 10.874342
TMT 3.51
TND 3.082261
TOP 2.342104
TRY 36.482804
TTD 6.77409
TWD 32.941038
TZS 2653.696498
UAH 41.384665
UGX 3656.672007
UYU 42.517739
UZS 12922.865644
VES 64.106483
VND 25515
VUV 123.142646
WST 2.828788
XAF 600.555734
XAG 0.0296
XAU 0.000335
XCD 2.70255
XDR 0.746899
XOF 600.555734
XPF 109.187457
YER 246.750363
ZAR 18.19963
ZMK 9001.203587
ZMW 28.557565
ZWL 321.999592
  • JRI

    0.0335

    12.83

    +0.26%

  • RBGPF

    66.0200

    66.02

    +100%

  • SCS

    0.2000

    10.99

    +1.82%

  • BCC

    2.9700

    99.35

    +2.99%

  • NGG

    0.8900

    63.21

    +1.41%

  • RIO

    1.8400

    63.04

    +2.92%

  • GSK

    0.2600

    39.49

    +0.66%

  • CMSC

    0.0500

    23.22

    +0.22%

  • AZN

    1.0900

    77.6

    +1.4%

  • CMSD

    0.1500

    23.35

    +0.64%

  • BTI

    -0.0200

    41.36

    -0.05%

  • RELX

    1.1200

    48.93

    +2.29%

  • BCE

    -0.1990

    23.47

    -0.85%

  • RYCEF

    0.0500

    10.4

    +0.48%

  • VOD

    0.0500

    9.55

    +0.52%

  • BP

    1.0200

    33.39

    +3.05%


Ukraine: Problem with the ceasefire?




As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its fourth year, a new proposal for a 30-day ceasefire has emerged from U.S. diplomatic circles, touted as a potential stepping stone to de-escalation. Russia's nefarious dictator and war criminal Vladimir Putin (72) has signalled cautious receptivity, provided the truce addresses the "root causes" of the conflict, while Ukrainian leaders remain wary. On the surface, a pause in hostilities offers a glimmer of relief for a war-weary population. Yet, beneath the diplomatic veneer, the proposed ceasefire is riddled with problems—strategic, political, and practical—that threaten to undermine its viability and, worse, exacerbate an already volatile situation.

A Temporary Fix with No Clear Endgame
The most glaring issue with the ceasefire is its brevity. At 30 days, it offers little more than a fleeting respite, unlikely to resolve the deep-seated issues fuelling the war. Russia’s demand to tackle "root causes"—a thinly veiled reference to its territorial ambitions and opposition to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations—clashes directly with Kyiv’s insistence on full sovereignty and the restoration of pre-2014 borders. Without a framework for meaningful negotiations, the ceasefire risks becoming a mere intermission, allowing both sides to regroup and rearm rather than pursue peace.

Historical precedent supports this scepticism. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, intended to halt fighting in eastern Ukraine, collapsed amid mutual accusations of bad faith. A short-term truce now, absent a robust enforcement mechanism or mutual trust, could follow a similar trajectory, leaving civilians to bear the brunt when hostilities inevitably resume.

The Strategic Dilemma for Ukraine
For Ukraine, the ceasefire poses a strategic conundrum. President Volodymyr Zelensky has spent years rallying domestic and international support around the mantra of "no concessions" to Russian aggression. Pausing the fight now, especially after the recent loss of territory in Russia’s Kursk region, could be perceived as a sign of weakness, emboldening Moscow and disheartening Kyiv’s allies. Ukrainian commanders, including Oleksandr Syrskii, have prioritised preserving troop strength, but a ceasefire might freeze their forces in disadvantageous positions, particularly along the eastern front, where Russia continues to press its advantage.

Moreover, the timing is suspect. The temporary suspension of U.S. intelligence support earlier this year left Ukraine reeling, and while that assistance has resumed, Kyiv remains on the back foot. A ceasefire now could lock in Russia’s recent gains, including reclaimed territory in Kursk, without guaranteeing reciprocal concessions. For a nation fighting for survival, this asymmetry is a bitter pill to swallow.

Russia’s Leverage and Bad Faith
On the Russian side, the ceasefire proposal raises questions of intent. Putin’s willingness to entertain a truce comes as his forces, bolstered by North Korean reinforcements, have regained momentum. The Kremlin may see the pause as an opportunity to consolidate control over occupied regions, reinforce supply lines, and prepare for a spring offensive—all while avoiding the political cost of appearing to reject peace outright. Moscow’s track record of violating ceasefires, from Donbas to Syria, fuels Ukrainian fears that any lull would be exploited rather than honoured.

The involvement of North Korean troops adds another layer of complexity. Their presence, a breach of international norms, has drawn muted criticism from Western powers, yet the ceasefire proposal does not explicitly address this escalation. Without mechanisms to monitor or reverse such foreign involvement, the truce risks legitimising Russia’s reliance on external support, further tilting the battlefield in its favour.

The Humanitarian Paradox
Proponents argue that a ceasefire would alleviate civilian suffering, particularly as winter tightens its grip on Ukraine’s battered infrastructure. Yet, this humanitarian promise is fraught with paradox. Russia has repeatedly targeted energy grids and civilian areas, a tactic likely to persist during any truce unless explicitly prohibited and enforced. A 30-day pause might allow limited aid delivery, but without guarantees of safety or a longer-term commitment, it could also delay the broader reconstruction Ukraine desperately needs.

For Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons—numbering in the millions—a temporary ceasefire offers no clarity on when, or if, they can return home. Meanwhile, Russian authorities in occupied territories have accelerated "Russification" efforts, including forced conscription and passportisation, which a short truce would do little to halt.

The Absence of Enforcement
Perhaps the most damning flaw is the lack of an enforcement mechanism. Who would monitor compliance? The United Nations, hamstrung by Russia’s Security Council veto, is ill-equipped to intervene. NATO, while supportive of Ukraine, has stopped short of direct involvement, and independent observers lack the authority to deter violations. Without a credible arbiter, the ceasefire hinges on goodwill—a commodity in short supply after years of bloodshed and broken promises.

A Fragile Hope Undermined by Reality
The proposed ceasefire reflects a well-intentioned but flawed attempt to pause a war that defies easy resolution. For Ukraine, it risks entrenching losses without securing gains; for Russia, it offers a chance to regroup under the guise of diplomacy. For both, it lacks the substance to bridge their irreconcilable aims. As the U.S. and its allies prepare to table the proposal, they must confront an uncomfortable truth: a truce that fails to address the conflict’s underlying drivers—or to enforce its terms—may do more harm than good, prolonging a war it seeks to pause.

In Kyiv, where resilience has become a way of life, the mood is one of cautious defiance. "We want peace," a senior Ukrainian official remarked this week, "but not at the cost of our future." Until the ceasefire’s proponents can answer that concern, its promise remains as fragile as the front lines it aims to still.