The chances of serenity for Ukraine remain thin after more than three years of conflict. Given Russia’s refusal to prolong a short, tense truce over Easter, there is no clear, believable path, perhaps to a stalemate. Despite the fact that the US, UK, and Ukraine have all expressed their help for this plan,
A more important issue do still exist even if the significant obstacles to a ceasefire deal may be overcome. No one of the important people in the fight appears to have a strategy for reaching an agreement that Kyiv and Moscow are likely to agree with.
Prior plans, such as a shared plan by China and Brazil in May of last year that was supported by a Chinese-led” Friends of Peace” group, mostly focused on a stalemate as a launching pad for negotiations about an exact peace agreement.
Although the specifics of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine were unspoken, this and other plans were roundly criticized by Ukraine and its eastern allies as favoring Russia. This was not an absurd position because a ceasefire would simply freeze the top lines and have a very good chance of making them lasting with or without a new peace deal.
But, what Ukraine chose to do was hardly more practical and was supported by its western allies, at least philosophically. At the time of the second” Summit on Peace in Ukraine” in Switzerland in June 2024, Volodymyr Zelensky’s proposed peace schedule was already in limbo.
There was no consensus on a follow-up meeting, and only 84 of the 100 representatives at the summit ( out of 160 invited ) supported a more nuanced version of Zelensky’s plan in their final communiqué. The Ukrainian harmony strategy was unmistakably dead in the water.
Therefore, Ukraine suggested an “internal endurance plan.” This is nothing more than a peace plan because it focuses on ensuring the nation you live a protracted attrition war with Russia.
However, it helps Kyiv’s wants to avoid a total retreat to Moscow. The commitment to supporting Kyiv is also great on the agenda for Ukraine’s Western allies, who are also on top of their goals.
It is crucial to keep Ukraine in the fight while assisting the emerging German coalition of the willing in developing its own defenses. They are susceptible to a new global order, which might split the world into US, Russian, and Taiwanese spheres of influence.
Where is the White House located?
For a vehement effort is at the heart of US President Donald Trump’s efforts, which include a deal that would offer the US privileged access to Ukrainian resources as well as a peace between Russia and Ukraine.
This deal appears to be close to being finalized after first unravelling during an incredibly content press conference held at the White House on February 28.
According to a recent suggestion from Trump’s special minister for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, the peace agreement that Trump appears to have in mind may break Ukraine into spheres of influence. Diplomats are still eluded by even a pro-Moscow deal that would grant Putin power of 20 % of Ukraine.
Given Trump’s unwillingness to put any significant pressure on Russia, the Russian president currently has some incentives to accept less than his highest demands and end a war he believes will still be able to get on the battlefield.
At times, it seems more probable that Trump will simply give up trying to put an end to the fighting in Ukraine. This would be desirable from the Soviet point of view over a ceasefire that would stop the turmoil but don’t produce a peace agreement in line with Moscow’s demands.
Even if the US midterm elections in 2026 would likely weaken Trump’s hold on power, the Kremlin’s estimate suggests that two more years will pass before the country can win more Ukrainian territory. Moscow may demand any further conquests as payment for a lawsuit if Washington then presses for a new ceasefire.
Even if Trump decides to stay in the talks right away and even if his exclusive minister Steve Witkoff ends up putting up a package, it will still look more like a stalemate than a peace deal.
Strong gulf between Ukraine and Russia
The basic reason for this is that neither Russia nor Ukraine’s positions on a satisfactory result have changed. Putin continues to support the full conquest of four of Ukraine’s regions as well as the preservation of Crimea. Zellensky has repeatedly ruled out regional concessions, and he enjoys wide support from Ukrainian in this regard.
The West’s perception that a peace deal would be nearly impossible to reach in terms that would satisfy all parties has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are only a handful of joint attempts by Ukraine, the US, and the German coalition of the willing, with all of them focused on a functional peace.
On April 17 at a gathering of foreign ministers and senior officials in Paris, the discussion centered on sustaining for a ceasefire. Although the specifics of how this can be achieved are still unsure, the fact that there are now more equitable conversations indicates development, at least in terms of the negotiation approach.
However, their substance and whether Ukraine and Russia may finally agree on terms regarding alienation of forces, monitoring, guarantees, and enforcement mechanisms will determine whether this will actually lead to a breakthrough toward a green ceasefire.
This is already a very high table, and the table for a later peace deal is even higher. A peace is undoubtedly a prerequisite for a peace agreement in the current level of Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. However, the one thing that needs to be focused on the first won’t make the former any more probable.
In addition, investing everyone in a ceasefire deal may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy for Ukraine and its followers given Russia’s history of breaking the Minsk stalemate agreements of September 2014 and February 2015.
Tetyana Malyarenko, professor of global surveillance, and Stefan Wolff, professor of global surveillance, are Jean Monnet and professor of Western security, National University Odesa Law Academy.
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Study the article’s introduction.