OPINION: Ceasefire Blues?

The incoming US presidential administration has raised many fears in the pro-Ukraine world with its talk of peace on day one. Many of us figured that the only way that could be achieved was through capitulation to Kremlin demands and corresponding strangulation of American weapons supply to Kyiv. This week we get word that President-elect Donald Trump now thinks it is slightly more complicated than he originally thought and that it would take six months. It’s still fast, but maybe, just maybe, it won’t be achieved on the back of Ukrainian aspirations.

There is a clear divide among the advisors and officials slated for the administration so far. And while there are indeed some who would advocate cut-and-run, there appear to be at least as many who advocate strategies that would seek to accelerate peace by strengthening Ukraine and persuading Russia that it cannot win and should negotiate.

So would a ceasefire really be so bad for Ukrainians? We’ll get to how to get Putin to the table in a bit, but let’s reflect on what a ceasefire could contribute to Ukraine. First of all, it seems clear to all of us now that Western leaders were not and are not prepared to provision Ukraine with the military kit and tactical authorizations needed to militarily push the Russian forces out of Ukrainian territory. It could plausibly have happened in autumn of 2022 had the tanks and planes been forthcoming in advance of the Kherson/Kharkiv counter-offensive. But the dithering of Western allies allowed the Russians to build really effective defensive fortifications before the 2023 counteroffensive.

Other Topics of Interest

For the Record – Comments from Biden, NATO Secretary General

A selection of what is being said concerning Ukraine and related issues.

Now, without permission to use long-range fires to attrit Russian supply lines, oil and gas installations, and airfields from which the bombers with glide bombs take off, (combined with still not enough armor and air-to-ground attack planes), there is no plausible way to retake the territory of Ukraine short of Russian governmental collapse.

So let’s be creative. Let’s use a ceasefire to change the balance. Ukraine could give its infantry a rest. It could fix mobilization and refresh its brigades with new soldiers. It could establish in-country training with NATO trainers. It would have the chance to accelerate its military industrial complex with eager Western defense contractors not brave enough to follow Rheinmetall’s lead and establish factories during active combat. It could build defensive bulwarks at 1 km, 5 kms and 20 kms from the current line of contact. It could stabilize its heating and electrical grids, rebuild bombed cities, attract displaced people’s return to revivify the economy and attract massive foreign direct investment. Ukraine admirers have increased many-fold over the last three years, and many of them would jump at the chance to help Ukraine rebuild and flourish.

We all know that Russia would not honor any agreement they sign. They would be waiting for the opportunity to attack again. We can presume that plausible Putin successors would not be immune from that temptation. We hear of how Russia would just re-arm, allow breathing room for its economy to recover, and then try again.

But why wouldn’t Ukraine rebuild and re-arm more quickly? Why couldn’t the weapon production in Ukraine be twice as fast as that of Russia during a ceasefire? The indigenous missile and drone production during active war has been faster in Ukraine, why couldn’t it be even faster during a ceasefire? Corruption will still be riddling Russian efforts, and Ukraine could fight corruption more effectively without simultaneously fighting for its existence.

It is obvious that security (or should we say policing an agreement) is a huge question. All of us Ukraine advocates favor NATO membership. But if that is not forthcoming, would an American treaty do the trick? Or European forces deployed as peacekeepers along the line of control?

Ultimately, it may be enough for Ukraine to be a porcupine state like Israel – too prickly for an adversary to even touch. Even the “mighty” Russian Empire could be dissuaded. Such a strategy and the military to make it work would require a costly percentage of Ukrainian GDP, but it would be worth it in the absence of more inclusive protection.

One final point. The bleeding survival that Western governments’ “escalation management” mentality inflicted on Ukrainian society and its armed forces is grisly and for many of us reprehensible. Negotiation might be better.

Russia, however, is not willing. So wouldn’t it be ironic if in trying to get to a peace conference quickly, or just a ceasefire negotiation, that the US and the collective West pulled out the stops with permissions to use their weapons and the provision of more kit (even purchased with loans) to convince the Kremlin that the cost of fighting for a few more kilometers in Donbas and Zaporizhzhia is not worth further destruction of its own economy and petrochemical infrastructure? It could even lead to withdrawal, collapse or a coup. Wouldn’t that be something?

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.