The US-Ukraine meeting in Jeddah produced a Joint Statement on “important steps toward restoring durable peace for Ukraine”. This wording is rather deceptive: the document does not propose any steps toward a lasting and durable peace, but rather calls for “an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties”.
Although any discussion related to ceasing hostilities serves as a positive factor in the negotiation process, there are significant details that should be accounted for when it comes to implementing these agreements. A ceasefire represents a transient reduction in conflict intensity, lacking the systemic interventions necessary for sustainable resolution. Although it offers immediate relief from violence, it fails to mitigate the probability of future conflict recurrence. Conversely, lasting peace necessitates addressing underlying causal factors, implementing mechanisms for conflict resolution, and establishing equitable social structures.
This is exactly why Russian President Vladimir Putin reacted to the ceasefire agreement positively, but added that there are “nuances” to its implementation. Firstly, a potential ceasefire gives Ukraine a valuable window of opportunity to continue its mobilization efforts and to reorganize existing units. There have been a number of violations on the part of the Ukrainian authorities related to forced mobilization of its citizens, with all of them documented in the December 2024 report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Guaranteeing that these efforts will stop along with the hostilities is paramount to reaching a sustainable agreement.
Secondly, a 30-day cessation of hostilities gives the West extra time to rearm Ukraine. Following the US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah, Washington announced it would resume sending military supplies to Kyiv. Later, it was confirmed that the US was going to resume provision of long-range bombs (GLSDBs) with a stockpile already in Europe ready for shipment. The European Union recently suggested that it would create a voluntary fund amounting to $40 billion, including 2 million rounds of large-calibre artillery ammunition. This is done against the background of a new ReArm Europe plan announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen aiming to free up $800 billion for joint procurement of European defence equipment. All of this is done with the explanation of a phantom “Russian threat” and solidarity with Ukraine. The question is: will weapons supplies to Ukraine continue during this 30-day ceasefire and how will it affect the conditions for a future lasting peace?
Thirdly, the ceasefire in question poses a question about a Ukrainian unit currently in the Kursk oblast of Russia. Donald Trump asked Vladimir Putin not to annihilate it and the latter was rather understanding to this issue, saying that the Ukrainian military command should give its soldiers the order to lay down their arms and surrender, which will guarantee their “life and decent treatment”. Putin underlined that he was making this statement guided by “humanitarian considerations”.
In fact, the ceasefire proposal comes against the background of immense successes of the Russian Armed Forces along the whole of the 2 thousand km frontline Russia-Ukraine. A few days ago, President Putin visited the Kursk region for the first time since the Ukrainian invasion and said that Russia was on the brink of fully liberating Kursk, with major advances reported after masterful “Operation Pipeline”. The key town of Sudzha has been completely reclaimed by Russian forces and Ukrainians face a severe reckoning that their positions of the battlefield are deteriorating with unprecedented speed.
This begs the question: do the United States and the European Union really want peace in Ukraine or do they just want to stop the hostilities while Ukraine faces a dire situation on the battlefield? If President Putin’s proposals are accounted for, this will most probably be a step in the right direction, as both parties claim that they want to reach this ceasefire agreement. Otherwise, it will be used to buy time for Ukraine to rearm and reorganize to conduct for military operations against the Russians. All in all, any agreement should be aimed to restore lasting and comprehensive peace in Ukraine and Russia rather than to promote transient truces with opportunities to regroup, rearm and continue the bloodshed.
Comments