Disputes over a truce vs. a settlement: Ukraine advocates for a ceasefire, while Putin and Trump push for a peace agreement – understanding their contrasting proposals.
In the ongoing conflict in the Donbas region, a crucial aspect to consider is the parts of the region still under Kyiv's control, which include infrastructure vital for Ukraine's defense [1]. The Russian military currently holds almost all of Luhansk and more than 70% of Donetsk [2].
However, the path to a permanent peace agreement is fraught with challenges. Kyiv and its allies understand that any deal sought by Russia could undermine the global principle that a country cannot gain territory by force [3]. International law experts assert that any agreement forcing Ukraine to give up its land to stop the killing of its people by Russia would be illegal under the UN Charter [4].
Under the Ukrainian constitution, any change to the country's borders must be approved by a referendum [5]. Yet, Russia demands territorial recognition, including Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, which Ukraine and many Western actors reject as illegal annexations [4].
A ceasefire might be the only way out of the current violence, but a permanent peace deal would be against international law [6]. The UN's role includes upholding nuclear safety under the IAEA for Ukrainian plants, condemning threats of nuclear weapons, and ensuring humanitarian elements such as prisoner exchanges [2].
Negotiations are complicated by ongoing fighting, differing maximalist demands, and geopolitical dynamics. Ukraine prioritizes a ceasefire first to avoid negotiating under military pressure, seeking diplomatic space to secure a fair peace [7]. Russia's insistence on territorial concessions and veto rights over Western military aid represent major sticking points [4].
Some European leaders are pushing for a temporary truce before a permanent peace agreement. A ceasefire is different from a peace deal in international law, with a ceasefire being a temporary pause in fighting while a peace deal is a long-term treaty dictating future relations [8].
The complexity of the conflict and divergent demands make achieving such an agreement difficult. There is little incentive for Kyiv to trust Russia due to its past aggressions against Ukraine [9]. If cities like Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, and Kostiantynivka were to be taken by Russia, the road to the western parts of the country would be wide open [10].
Speaking to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders, President Donald Trump has adopted some of Moscow's talking points [11]. Yet, a lasting peace would need strong provisions to deter future Russian aggression, address security guarantees, and ensure compliance with the UN Charter provisions [1].
The Ukraine peace process may set precedents for conflict resolution and NATO-Russia relations, with ceasefire provisions potentially adapted for broader regional stability [1]. However, any poorly constructed peace could undermine international law principles or leave Ukraine vulnerable to future violations [2][4]. The key is to balance Ukraine’s right to sovereign control and territorial integrity with pragmatic security guarantees, compliance with the UN Charter provisions, and humanitarian commitments.
Read also:
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
- Massive 8.8 earthquake hits off the coast of Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula, prompting Japan to issue a tsunami alert.
