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 1.43605
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 0.773091
GBP 0.772648
GEL 2.77504
GGP 0.773091
GHS 15.442804
GIP 0.773091
GMD 71.491246
GNF 8672.105689
GTQ 7.704568
GYD 208.985412
HKD 7.772765
HNL 25.633617
HRK 6.925804
HTG 133.076909
HUF 366.799262
IDR 16351.742674
ILS 3.64425
IMP 0.773091
INR 86.948679
IQD 1310.306894
IRR 42002.880173
ISK 133.993515
JEP 0.773091
JMD 156.136803
JOD 0.70904
JPY 148.63304
KES 129.702749
KGS 87.450009
KHR 4001.036016
KMF 451.767344
KPW 900.009261
KRW 1451.244265
KWD 0.3088
KYD 0.820011
KZT 501.199581
LAK 21652.993185
LBP 90227.73003
LKR 296.309238
LRD 199.168874
LSL 18.168804
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 4.812993
MAD 9.689035
MDL 17.791289
MGA 4675.310857
MKD 56.379504
MMK 2099.758323
MNT 3473.17909
MOP 8.006543
MRU 39.968936
MUR 44.950674
MVR 15.45992
MWK 1733.394393
MXN 19.93505
MYR 4.446459
MZN 63.574491
NAD 18.168804
NGN 1547.612245
NIO 36.625074
NOK 10.640404
NPR 139.183097
NZD 1.740281
OMR 0.385
PAB 1
PEN 3.658336
PGK 4.054568
PHP 57.269249
PKR 280.096131
PLN 3.838435
PYG 7987.102859
QAR 3.640374
RON 4.574106
RSD 107.724204
RUB 85.504654
RWF 1404.876498
SAR 3.750373
SBD 8.499789
SCR 14.938148
SDG 599.053774
SEK 10.13767
SGD 1.334462
SHP 0.785843
SLE 22.830371
SLL 20969.501083
SOS 571.789733
SRD 36.294663
STD 20697.981008
SVC 8.75037
SYP 13001.855181
SZL 18.168804
THB 33.506786
TJS 10.892306
TMT 3.506346
TND 3.078015
TOP 2.403823
TRY 36.632904
TTD 6.808789
TWD 32.974352
TZS 2631.61813
UAH 41.646876
UGX 3665.577031
UYU 42.641413
UZS 12947.309311
VES 65.8227
VND 25505.052165
VUV 122.95793
WST 2.818495
XAF 602.356458
XAG 0.0296
XAU 0.000335
XCD 2.700037
XDR 0.750475
XOF 602.356458
XPF 109.580728
YER 246.760526
ZAR 18.180604
ZMK 9001.203587
ZMW 28.750575
ZWL 321.999592
  • RBGPF

    66.0200

    66.02

    +100%

  • RELX

    1.1200

    48.93

    +2.29%

  • NGG

    0.8900

    63.21

    +1.41%

  • SCS

    0.2000

    10.99

    +1.82%

  • VOD

    0.0500

    9.55

    +0.52%

  • GSK

    0.2600

    39.49

    +0.66%

  • RIO

    1.8400

    63.04

    +2.92%

  • CMSC

    0.0500

    23.22

    +0.22%

  • RYCEF

    0.0500

    10.4

    +0.48%

  • CMSD

    0.1500

    23.35

    +0.64%

  • JRI

    0.0335

    12.83

    +0.26%

  • BCC

    2.9700

    99.35

    +2.99%

  • AZN

    1.0900

    77.6

    +1.4%

  • BCE

    -0.1990

    23.47

    -0.85%

  • BP

    1.0200

    33.39

    +3.05%

  • BTI

    -0.0200

    41.36

    -0.05%


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.