Despite all the diplomatic back-and-forth, Ukraine and Russia remain far from even the most basic agreement for a permanent ceasefire in the war. Photo courtesy the Armed Forces of Ukraine/Facebook.

“Yes, but,” might be the best way of summarizing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response to the joint US-Ukrainian proposal for a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine that emerged from talks between American and Ukrainian delegates in Jeddah earlier this week. “We are for it, but there are nuances,” he told reporters. Any ceasefire should be permanent, not temporary, and should address the root causes of the war. Besides which, there were unanswered questions, said Putin. Would the ceasefire be used to rearm Ukraine? Who would monitor the ceasefire, prevent violations, and ensure that fighting did not again erupt? These issues, he said would have to be discussed with the Americans before moving forward.

This was, one might say, a polite way of rejecting the ceasefire proposal without actually rejecting it, while leaving the door open for further negotiations and for the possibility of a ceasefire of a different sort at some future point. The reasons for the rejection are clear. From a military standpoint, Ukraine has a lot more to gain from a ceasefire than Russia, especially a temporary ceasefire of the sort being proposed. The Russians have also made it clear again and again that they are not interested in ending the war in a way that leaves key issues unsettled. Such an ending would create a situation in which there was a perpetual danger of renewed conflict. Since European states are saying that they wish to use a ceasefire to arm Ukraine to the teeth (turning it into a “steel porcupine,” according to EU Chief Ursula von der Leyen) and are also talking about sending troops to Ukraine in such circumstances, Moscow has some reasons to regard such an outcome with........

© Canadian Dimension