Andriy Zagorodnyuk, Alina Frolova and Oleksandr Khara
Almost two months into President Trump’s tenure in the White House, his promised and highly publicised quick resolution of Russia’s war in Ukraine remains as unclear and confusing as ever. Following a controversial Oval Office meeting with President Zelensky, Ukraine took steps to mend relations with the US administration, first proposing a staged ceasefire, later accepting a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire and most recently a ceasefire on energy infrastructure.
Moscow’s position – that it seeks a comprehensive agreement rather than interim measures – is a familiar tactic. Russia wants to signal that it is in no hurry, while continuing to use violence as leverage against Ukraine and, more importantly, against a US administration eager for a quick resolution. It remains highly uncertain whether any ceasefire will actually take hold and be upheld – and, crucially, whether the US will press for more concessions from Russia or from Ukraine.
For Ukraine, the prospect of a sustainable end to the war is undoubtedly a commendable goal. There is no doubt that the country is suffering gravely from the violence, and peace remains its greatest aspiration. However, the credibility and reliability of any peace arrangements are absolutely critical to ensure – peace will only be as robust as the means by which it is protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment