On the benefits of a ceasefire in Ukraine

A lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine would, of course, be preferable, but it is simply unattainable. A long-term solution must not only be desirable, but also achievable, and at present such ambitious diplomacy is unrealistic.

It's all about being mature,” says Edgar in Shakespeare's King Lear. In the midst of diplomatic efforts to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, this is something everyone should keep in mind.

It is very rare in history that one side has managed to end a war simply by imposing its will on the other. In almost every case, the resolution of a conflict has matured for progress (and even a final solution) when leaders have emerged who have chosen peace over continued fighting; leaders who have sufficient domestic power to ensure support for that position; who have accepted a formula that implies certain benefits for all sides; and who have agreed to begin a mutually acceptable diplomatic process to achieve those goals.

In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war, the obvious question is: can these elements be found there? Although US President Donald Trump has made peace a priority, it is difficult to be optimistic. Russia occupied Crimea and the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas in 2014. Three and a half years after the renewed fighting in February 2022, little has changed on that map. Any peace that can be imagined there would have to be achieved solely through negotiations, not imposition.

Diplomatic prospects in Russia are not very bright. President Vladimir Putin is probably strong enough to explain to his people an end to the war, although he would have to justify why so many lives were lost for less than a complete victory. But he is not inclined to do so for now, believing that he is better off without a deal and that time is on his side. His goal is not so much territorial expansion as the destruction of Ukraine as an independent democratic state with strong ties to the West. He shows no willingness to settle for anything less. It is also not clear whether there is currently a diplomatic process that would be acceptable to Russia. It is indicative that the Kremlin is putting obstacles in the way of a meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

There are also limitations on the Ukrainian side. Ukraine considers a ceasefire preferable to continuing the war, but only on the condition that it is not asked to permanently cede any territory to Russia. Zelensky could explain such a compromise domestically, although many would be deeply hurt by Russia's continued occupation of Ukrainian territories.

A lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine would, of course, be preferable, but it is simply unattainable. A long-term solution must not only be desirable, but also achievable, and at present such ambitious diplomacy is unrealistic. Moreover, there would be numerous risks in attempting to achieve a lasting peace before the circumstances are truly ripe.

If Ukraine were forced to cede territory, it would be a reward for Putin and his aggression, which could then encourage other states with territorial ambitions to resort to force to achieve their goals. Moreover, the reality is that negotiations for such a peace would take months, even years, which would only prolong the fighting. As a rule, the scope of diplomatic ambition cannot exceed the level of maturity of the situation.

All of this underscores the need to reconsider the possibility of mediating a ceasefire (the approach the US chose ahead of the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska). Neither Russia nor Ukraine will be completely satisfied. Ukraine would have to give up any attempts to forcibly reclaim what Russia has occupied, while Russia would have to give up the possibility of occupying other parts of Ukraine and overthrowing its government.

In addition to the benefit of the cessation of hostilities, a ceasefire would bring something else to both sides: neither would have to give up its long-term goals, nor would it be left without the opportunity to further strengthen its army.

To achieve such a ceasefire, two things are needed: increased pressure on Russia and a long-term commitment to Ukraine. Much can be achieved if Trump promises (and Congress supports) unlimited military and intelligence assistance that Ukraine needs to establish a viable defense and carry out strikes against targets in Russia. Additional economic sanctions against Russia will also be needed, as will a promise that they will be eased if Russia signs a ceasefire agreement.

It is sometimes argued that Ukraine should be given security guarantees. This option should be considered with caution. Ukraine has already been invaded twice despite the guarantees given to it in 1994. The only more reliable guarantees in Europe since World War II have been NATO guarantees for member states - they are almost automatic and rely on the significant military potential of the United States and Europe. But in this case, nothing of the sort can be expected.

Europe and the US must seriously consider whether they want to replace their policy of indirect support for Ukraine with the presence of their planes in the sky and soldiers on the ground, because that could drag them into war with Russia. Here too, security assistance is proving more attractive than security guarantees.

Achieving a ceasefire will not be easy. The risk of the war continuing is still very real. Over time, both sides will have to reassess not only the pros and cons of continuing the fighting, but also their willingness to make additional compromises to end it.

However, even if a ceasefire is reached, there is a risk that it will be short-lived and turn into a pause rather than a step towards peace. One possible way to prevent renewed fighting is to make it unattractive by strengthening deterrence. This approach can be further strengthened by clearly presenting the costs that would be borne by the party that violates the ceasefire.

There is also the danger that the armistice will be prolonged and that the temporary lines will become almost permanent. This was the case on the Korean Peninsula and in Cyprus. Still, even that is far better than continuing the war. Sometimes, when new leaders emerge, it is quite possible that an opportunity for a peace agreement will arise. Until then, a long-term armistice seems to be the best solution for all parties.