Vladimir Putin's 30-day ceasefire: Strategic ploy or genuine peace bid?

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s agreement to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy-infrastructure targets for 30 days should have been welcomed for marking the first half-step towards ending the three-year war. Instead, it is being regarded as a red herring by Ukraine and its European allies, especially the Baltic states and Eastern Europe. Hours after he told American President Donald Trump that he would pause such attacks if Ukraine reciprocated, Mr Putin launched a major air raid on energy infrastructure in Slovyansk city in eastern Ukraine, leaving 100,000 people without electricity. It is worth noting that in the 90-minute phone-call with Washington D C, Mr Putin did not commit himself to the unconditional 30-day ceasefire, to which Kyiv had committed last week. For that, he has set conditions that suggest that Russia is playing a game of brinkmanship and is not entirely serious about a lasting peace deal.

 

The key condition that the Kremlin has spelt out is a complete cessation of foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv. This implies halting military aid not just from the United States (US) but also from European allies, including plans for ensuring long-term post-conflict security guarantees for Ukraine. Naturally, neither Ukraine nor its European allies are likely to accept these terms. Ukraine has lost a staggering number of civilians and troops since Russia’s invasion in February 2022 plus over half its power generation capacity and gas-production facilities. With so much already lost, it is hard to see how Ukraine benefits even from this limited agreement. On the contrary, Russia gains from Ukraine being asked to halt drone attacks on refineries in the Russian rear, which Moscow had found disconcertingly destabilising. Messrs Trump and Putin have also reportedly agreed to seek a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea. This, too, is largely more beneficial to Russia after Ukrainian drones drove Russia’s storied Black Sea Fleet out of the Crimea and into the eastern Black Sea last year.

 

Not surprisingly, Europe was unimpressed by the modest deal that Mr Trump appears to have secured with the Russian President. At a Press conference, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz resolved to continue to support the Ukrainian army in what they described as its “war of resistance”. Frontline countries also remain unconvinced. On March 18 evening, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) members Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia announced plans to withdraw from the 1997 Ottawa convention, which bans anti-personnel landmines due to the military threat from Russia. No surprise, these countries also already spend way above the Nato pledge of 2 per cent of their gross domestic product on defence.

 

Meanwhile, the Kremlin insists on bizarre bilateral mode between Moscow and Washington for peace negotiations, effectively shutting Ukraine out of discussions. Analysts suggest Mr Putin is exploring ways to turn down the US President’s efforts for an inclusive ceasefire without specifically saying so. The real danger is that the US may find itself entangled in Mr Putin’s strategy of detaching Washington from Europe. Given Mr Trump’s strongly expressed pro-Putin proclivities and his baiting of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House last month, such an outcome is not outside the realm of possibility. The portents for a liberal, rules-based order have never appeared more discouraging.