Nuances Make a Truce Workable

We are following the fate of the American idea of ​​a 30-day truce for Ukraine.

On March 11 in Jeddah, US representatives managed to wring consent from Zelensky’s envoys under pressure.

On March 13, Washington’s special representative Steven Witkoff discussed the Russian position, later made public by President Vladimir Putin. This position has become a classic of “judo diplomacy”. Putin expressed gratitude to President Trump for “paying so much attention to the settlement in Ukraine.” That Trump, like other leaders of world powers, are cooperating in the “noble mission of ending hostilities and human losses.”

Moscow’s principled position is beyond doubt: “We agree with proposals to cease hostilities.” This agreement was voiced three times. And the “but” that was added later was a development of the idea, and not an obstacle at all. “But” let’s think — why are we doing this?

To rest for 30 days and resume the military conflict with new forces? To make it even more violent and destructive? Is this the goal of all diplomatic efforts? Will, I would add, such a failure decorate the triumphant presidency of peacemaker Donald Trump?

No, a temporary ceasefire should become a prologue and a bridge to a “long-term peace”, the stability of which is ensured by eliminating the “initial causes of this crisis”. For this to happen, says the Russian president, it is necessary to take into account the nuances.

What are they? Kursk region. Putin proposed as a radical measure for the remnants of the “invasion corps” of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to simply lay down their arms and surrender. There is another nuance here. If the Ukrainian side received a counter request through the Americans: “we are ceasing resistance in the Kursk region and leaving without equipment, give us the opportunity for a peaceful exit”, a positive answer is not at all excluded.

A more complex topic: how to ensure a real ceasefire on a front stretching for about 2 thousand kilometers? Humanity has a lot of practical experience in this regard.

It is necessary to stop not only shooting, bombing and drone attacks, but all types of military actions in a comprehensive manner. It will be necessary to stop the supply of weapons and ammunition, as well as the flow of intelligence data from outside to Ukraine. No movement of military cargo and troops into the war zone, no rotation of units at their positions. A ban on fortification work within 60 km from the contact line, and on conducting aerial reconnaissance there.

Who to entrust with monitoring compliance with the terms of the ceasefire and arbitration in case of possible violations is a separate, complex topic, but quite solvable if the basic conditions are agreed upon by the parties. They say that in a short 30 days it is extremely difficult to create conditions for a lasting peace. And the return of war after a moment of hope will create a psychological barrier to new efforts to stop the conflict. And who said that 30 days is an ironclad deadline?

Let’s dream. And what if during this time in Kyiv at the session of the Verkhovna Rada they change the speaker and adopt a binding Declaration of Peace? And there will be the cherished words. We propose to extend the ceasefire to 60 days, during which time we will review the martial law regime, appoint a delegation for negotiations with Russia, accept the resignation of the president whose term of office has expired, create a government of national accord, set a date for holding presidential and parliamentary elections, combined with a referendum on constitutional amendments. Something like that.

Then, really, the ceasefire will continue and work as a real peacekeeping project. I understand what a wave of skepticism will fall on such a ceasefire plan. But history is made by those whose strong-willed pragmatism is stronger than herd pessimism.

Let’s agree on the nuances that will turn the idea of ​​a ceasefire into a workable project and a truly “noble mission.”