JUN KAJEE: A turning point in the Ukraine-Russia conflict?

The US-brokered 30-day ceasefire proposal between Ukraine and Russia marks an important shift in the ongoing conflict, but lessons from the past suggest temporary truces rarely lead to lasting peace.

As Ukraine has agreed to the proposal, all eyes are now on Russia’s response, which could determine the future course of the war.

The conflicts in the Korean peninsula, the Balkans and the Middle East have exhibited comparable patterns regarding ceasefires and their outcomes. 

In Korea, the ceasefire resulted in a “frozen conflict” where hostilities ceased but the underlying issues remained unresolved. The armistice signed on July 27 1953 solidified the 38th parallel as a geopolitical fault line, dividing the Korean Peninsula into two opposing states. This situation has persisted for decades, with tensions flaring periodically. 

In the Balkans, particularly Bosnia, ceasefires often served as tactical pauses rather than steps towards lasting peace. These temporary truces allowed warring parties to regroup and reinforce their positions, and were routinely violated, with both sides attempting to use the lulls in fighting to their advantage. 

The Middle East has seen similar patterns, with ceasefires sometimes failing to address root causes of conflicts or being used strategically by combatants. The recent Gaza conflict exemplifies this, with a long-term resolution remaining elusive. 

Ukraine and Russia now face comparable choices regarding the proposed ceasefire. They must decide whether to use it as an opportunity for genuine de-escalation and peace negotiations, or potentially as a strategic pause in hostilities.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has officially agreed to the US proposal for a month-long ceasefire, which encompasses the entire front line of the conflict, including air and maritime domains, signalling Ukraine’s willingness to pursue a diplomatic solution. Zelensky emphasised that the ceasefire would commence as soon as Moscow consents, putting the onus on Russia to reciprocate. 

The acceptance of this proposal by Ukraine comes at a crucial time, as Russian forces continue their advance in the Kursk region, where Ukraine had conducted a surprise incursion in August 2024. 

The ceasefire proposal emerged from peace talks between US and Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia. After these discussions the US declared an immediate resumption of intelligence sharing and security support for Ukraine. This restoration of aid provides significant relief for Kyiv, especially in light of recent disagreements between US president Donald Trump and Zelensky. 

US secretary of state Marco Rubio emphasised that the responsibility now lies with Russia to take action to conclude the conflict. The joint US-Ukrainian statement highlighted that the ceasefire could be extended with mutual consent and requires acceptance and simultaneous implementation by Russia. 

The Kremlin’s response to the ceasefire proposal remains cautious. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that Moscow is awaiting a briefing from US officials on the details of the proposed ceasefire. This measured approach suggests that Russia is carefully considering its options and the potential implications of accepting or rejecting the proposal. 

International reactions have been largely positive, with UK prime minister Keir Starmer stating that “the ball is now in the Russian court”. This sentiment echoes the consensus that Russia’s decision will be crucial in determining the future course of the conflict. 

Trump has expressed his approval of the announcement and indicated plans to discuss the proposal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This potential dialogue between Trump and Putin could significantly influence the outcome of the ceasefire proposal. 

Trump’s approach to the conflict has been controversial, with critics pointing out his alignment with Russian narratives about the war. This stance has put Ukraine in a strategic bind, as it can no longer rely on the consistent American support it received during the Biden administration. 

Several potential scenarios could unfold from this point: 

• Russian acceptance. If Russia agrees to the ceasefire it could pave the way for more comprehensive peace negotiations. However, this scenario might face resistance from pro-war Russian hardliners.
• Russian rejection. A rejection by Russia would likely trigger increased Western military aid to Ukraine, potentially prolonging the conflict.
• Partial agreement. Russia might agree to the ceasefire under specific conditions, such as a Ukrainian withdrawal from certain territories.
• Prolonged negotiations. The process of finalising and implementing the ceasefire could be protracted, with both sides attempting to secure favourable terms.

While Ukraine’s acceptance of the plan is a positive step, the ultimate outcome hinges on Russia’s response. As the situation unfolds, the global community watches closely, understanding that the path to lasting peace remains fraught with challenges and uncertainties. 

The coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining whether this ceasefire proposal can indeed lead to a significant de-escalation of the conflict or if it will become another chapter in the ongoing struggle between Ukraine and Russia. 

• Kajee is a lecturer and adjunct faculty member at Ling Tung University in Taiwan, focusing on internationalisation and intercultural communication.