Berliner Boersenzeitung - Ukraine: Problem with the ceasefire?

EUR -
AED 4.302842
AFN 79.988996
ALL 97.295357
AMD 449.496115
ANG 2.096669
AOA 1074.270892
ARS 1542.554451
AUD 1.787174
AWG 2.108711
AZN 1.994775
BAM 1.956754
BBD 2.366783
BDT 142.429437
BGN 1.955484
BHD 0.441666
BIF 3495.634019
BMD 1.171506
BND 1.500387
BOB 8.100018
BRL 6.312102
BSD 1.172236
BTN 102.507849
BWP 15.644293
BYN 3.875974
BYR 22961.520127
BZD 2.354668
CAD 1.611565
CDF 3385.653172
CHF 0.941185
CLF 0.0285
CLP 1117.956903
CNY 8.410473
CNH 8.409516
COP 4709.185192
CRC 592.871322
CUC 1.171506
CUP 31.044912
CVE 110.318782
CZK 24.471603
DJF 208.737308
DKK 7.462652
DOP 71.624918
DZD 152.035978
EGP 56.618843
ERN 17.572592
ETB 164.179842
FJD 2.632081
FKP 0.867307
GBP 0.863031
GEL 3.157207
GGP 0.867307
GHS 12.349384
GIP 0.867307
GMD 84.934193
GNF 10164.890962
GTQ 8.991115
GYD 245.241139
HKD 9.196329
HNL 30.729982
HRK 7.533136
HTG 153.440218
HUF 395.465457
IDR 18898.206549
ILS 3.971312
IMP 0.867307
INR 102.419433
IQD 1535.648952
IRR 49349.695449
ISK 142.958836
JEP 0.867307
JMD 187.861586
JOD 0.830587
JPY 172.542059
KES 151.452048
KGS 102.331051
KHR 4694.359167
KMF 493.789581
KPW 1054.282337
KRW 1614.603432
KWD 0.357849
KYD 0.976856
KZT 630.82289
LAK 25378.277118
LBP 104933.967605
LKR 352.691963
LRD 235.02254
LSL 20.737801
LTL 3.459153
LVL 0.708632
LYD 6.369105
MAD 10.559348
MDL 19.570124
MGA 5169.590424
MKD 61.749588
MMK 2459.266979
MNT 4213.193023
MOP 9.477735
MRU 46.783808
MUR 53.221526
MVR 18.037925
MWK 2032.686411
MXN 21.718247
MYR 4.92911
MZN 74.929531
NAD 20.737801
NGN 1798.226279
NIO 43.141033
NOK 11.944706
NPR 164.01236
NZD 1.957077
OMR 0.450427
PAB 1.171506
PEN 4.131513
PGK 4.948413
PHP 66.326585
PKR 332.664687
PLN 4.257455
PYG 8780.244627
QAR 4.274785
RON 5.060089
RSD 117.120174
RUB 93.365816
RWF 1696.194288
SAR 4.395499
SBD 9.642189
SCR 17.272426
SDG 703.489128
SEK 11.157735
SGD 1.499264
SHP 0.92062
SLE 27.177033
SLL 24565.896027
SOS 669.937247
SRD 43.836005
STD 24247.811607
STN 24.511218
SVC 10.257
SYP 15231.864138
SZL 20.733078
THB 37.824714
TJS 10.930509
TMT 4.111987
TND 3.446781
TOP 2.820706
TRY 47.73078
TTD 7.960643
TWD 35.089538
TZS 3045.915955
UAH 48.670728
UGX 4170.895348
USD 1.171506
UYU 46.942886
UZS 14664.110781
VES 155.520411
VND 30795.967364
VUV 140.053656
WST 3.11401
XAF 655.699054
XAG 0.030383
XAU 0.000349
XCD 3.166054
XCG 2.112648
XDR 0.822792
XOF 655.699054
XPF 119.331742
YER 281.483577
ZAR 20.514185
ZMK 10544.963998
ZMW 26.990389
ZWL 377.224496
  • RYCEF

    0.6400

    14.94

    +4.28%

  • SCS

    0.2300

    16.19

    +1.42%

  • RIO

    0.9600

    63.1

    +1.52%

  • NGG

    -0.9500

    70.28

    -1.35%

  • GSK

    0.5100

    38.22

    +1.33%

  • SCU

    0.0000

    12.72

    0%

  • CMSC

    0.0200

    23.08

    +0.09%

  • BTI

    -0.4100

    57.92

    -0.71%

  • RELX

    -0.2100

    47.83

    -0.44%

  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    73.08

    0%

  • BCC

    3.5200

    84.26

    +4.18%

  • BCE

    0.1500

    24.5

    +0.61%

  • JRI

    -0.0100

    13.38

    -0.07%

  • AZN

    1.2700

    75.34

    +1.69%

  • BP

    0.1200

    34.07

    +0.35%

  • CMSD

    -0.0107

    23.56

    -0.05%

  • VOD

    0.0300

    11.54

    +0.26%


Ukraine: Problem with the ceasefire?




As the war in Ukraine grinds towards its fourth year, a new proposal for a 30-day ceasefire has emerged from U.S. diplomatic circles, touted as a potential stepping stone to de-escalation. Russia's nefarious dictator and war criminal Vladimir Putin (72) has signalled cautious receptivity, provided the truce addresses the "root causes" of the conflict, while Ukrainian leaders remain wary. On the surface, a pause in hostilities offers a glimmer of relief for a war-weary population. Yet, beneath the diplomatic veneer, the proposed ceasefire is riddled with problems—strategic, political, and practical—that threaten to undermine its viability and, worse, exacerbate an already volatile situation.

A Temporary Fix with No Clear Endgame
The most glaring issue with the ceasefire is its brevity. At 30 days, it offers little more than a fleeting respite, unlikely to resolve the deep-seated issues fuelling the war. Russia’s demand to tackle "root causes"—a thinly veiled reference to its territorial ambitions and opposition to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations—clashes directly with Kyiv’s insistence on full sovereignty and the restoration of pre-2014 borders. Without a framework for meaningful negotiations, the ceasefire risks becoming a mere intermission, allowing both sides to regroup and rearm rather than pursue peace.

Historical precedent supports this scepticism. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, intended to halt fighting in eastern Ukraine, collapsed amid mutual accusations of bad faith. A short-term truce now, absent a robust enforcement mechanism or mutual trust, could follow a similar trajectory, leaving civilians to bear the brunt when hostilities inevitably resume.

The Strategic Dilemma for Ukraine
For Ukraine, the ceasefire poses a strategic conundrum. President Volodymyr Zelensky has spent years rallying domestic and international support around the mantra of "no concessions" to Russian aggression. Pausing the fight now, especially after the recent loss of territory in Russia’s Kursk region, could be perceived as a sign of weakness, emboldening Moscow and disheartening Kyiv’s allies. Ukrainian commanders, including Oleksandr Syrskii, have prioritised preserving troop strength, but a ceasefire might freeze their forces in disadvantageous positions, particularly along the eastern front, where Russia continues to press its advantage.

Moreover, the timing is suspect. The temporary suspension of U.S. intelligence support earlier this year left Ukraine reeling, and while that assistance has resumed, Kyiv remains on the back foot. A ceasefire now could lock in Russia’s recent gains, including reclaimed territory in Kursk, without guaranteeing reciprocal concessions. For a nation fighting for survival, this asymmetry is a bitter pill to swallow.

Russia’s Leverage and Bad Faith
On the Russian side, the ceasefire proposal raises questions of intent. Putin’s willingness to entertain a truce comes as his forces, bolstered by North Korean reinforcements, have regained momentum. The Kremlin may see the pause as an opportunity to consolidate control over occupied regions, reinforce supply lines, and prepare for a spring offensive—all while avoiding the political cost of appearing to reject peace outright. Moscow’s track record of violating ceasefires, from Donbas to Syria, fuels Ukrainian fears that any lull would be exploited rather than honoured.

The involvement of North Korean troops adds another layer of complexity. Their presence, a breach of international norms, has drawn muted criticism from Western powers, yet the ceasefire proposal does not explicitly address this escalation. Without mechanisms to monitor or reverse such foreign involvement, the truce risks legitimising Russia’s reliance on external support, further tilting the battlefield in its favour.

The Humanitarian Paradox
Proponents argue that a ceasefire would alleviate civilian suffering, particularly as winter tightens its grip on Ukraine’s battered infrastructure. Yet, this humanitarian promise is fraught with paradox. Russia has repeatedly targeted energy grids and civilian areas, a tactic likely to persist during any truce unless explicitly prohibited and enforced. A 30-day pause might allow limited aid delivery, but without guarantees of safety or a longer-term commitment, it could also delay the broader reconstruction Ukraine desperately needs.

For Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons—numbering in the millions—a temporary ceasefire offers no clarity on when, or if, they can return home. Meanwhile, Russian authorities in occupied territories have accelerated "Russification" efforts, including forced conscription and passportisation, which a short truce would do little to halt.

The Absence of Enforcement
Perhaps the most damning flaw is the lack of an enforcement mechanism. Who would monitor compliance? The United Nations, hamstrung by Russia’s Security Council veto, is ill-equipped to intervene. NATO, while supportive of Ukraine, has stopped short of direct involvement, and independent observers lack the authority to deter violations. Without a credible arbiter, the ceasefire hinges on goodwill—a commodity in short supply after years of bloodshed and broken promises.

A Fragile Hope Undermined by Reality
The proposed ceasefire reflects a well-intentioned but flawed attempt to pause a war that defies easy resolution. For Ukraine, it risks entrenching losses without securing gains; for Russia, it offers a chance to regroup under the guise of diplomacy. For both, it lacks the substance to bridge their irreconcilable aims. As the U.S. and its allies prepare to table the proposal, they must confront an uncomfortable truth: a truce that fails to address the conflict’s underlying drivers—or to enforce its terms—may do more harm than good, prolonging a war it seeks to pause.

In Kyiv, where resilience has become a way of life, the mood is one of cautious defiance. "We want peace," a senior Ukrainian official remarked this week, "but not at the cost of our future." Until the ceasefire’s proponents can answer that concern, its promise remains as fragile as the front lines it aims to still.