Putin And Zelensky: The Meaning And Maneuvers Of A “Ceasefire War”

-Analysis-

PARIS —The ‘ceasefire war’ sounds like an oxymoron, two contrary concepts. And yet, one can battle in a truce just as in combat. On Saturday, Vladimir Putin announced a surprise two-day truce to mark Easter. Volodymyr Zelensky was quick to agree to this halt to the fighting. But both Moscow and Kyiv reported hundreds of violations of the Easter truce on both sides of the front line, even if the major Ukrainian cities were spared during these two days.

This is not the first skirmish over the ceasefire issue. Five weeks ago, at a meeting with the United States in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine agreed to an “unconditional” 30-day ceasefire. The ball was then in the court of Russia, which did not seize it. There was no truce, not even a partial one. On the contrary, the murderous bombardment of Sumy eight days ago was a clear indication of an intensification of Russian strikes, including against clearly civilian targets.

These announcements of a truce are first and foremost a form of communication, aimed at Donald Trump. In Saudi Arabia, the Ukrainians went beyond American demands by declaring their readiness for an unconditional ceasefire, to regain the ground lost at the disastrous meeting in the Oval Office. The truce failed, but the resumption of dialogue with Washington succeeded — the minerals deal which had not been signed during Zelensky’s trip to Washington, are expected be concluded this week.

This time, it was Putin sending a message to Trump.

Twenty-four hours before Moscow‘s announcement, the American president had been perturbed at the lack of progress in negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. The “king of deals,” who had promised peace in 24 hours, is failing, and his administration has threatened to walk away if no progress was made.

Talks are going nowhere

Moscow and Kyiv are therefore redoubling their efforts to ensure that, in the event of failure, it is the “other” side that will have to take the blame.

In fact, these talks are going nowhere.

Moscow has maintained its demands, both those related to keeping its territorial conquests, and more importantly, to ensure that the Ukraine “after” will be demilitarized and therefore vulnerable.

Ukraine and its European supporters are opposed to such conditions, which are tantamount to capitulation.

Where Washington stands

The United States is sending contradictory signals. On the one hand, it is taking on board much of Russia’s rhetoric, and seems to be washing its hands of what happens next; on the other hand, it has resumed a dialogue with the Europeans — last Thursday in Paris, this week in London — with a new intensity that shows that several viewpoints coexist within this administration.

All this does not portend well for a rapid end to the conflict.

All this does not portend well for a rapid end to the conflict. But it does leave doubt about the American attitude in the event of failure. Will the United States turn its back on Ukraine, even if it appears that it is Russia that refuses to compromise?

That’s what’s ultimately at stake in the current diplomatic turmoil, in which the Europeans have regained a role in support of a Ukraine whose survival is at stake. A statement late Sunday from Kyiv said Ukraine is ready for a partial truce. The “ceasefire war” is not over.