Ukraine for truce

Ukraine's acceptance of a 30-day ceasefire deal brokered by the US marks a critical juncture in the war with Russia. While the immediate cessation of hostilities offers a brief respite from destruction, the fundamental question remains: Is this a genuine step toward a sustainable peace or merely a temporary strategic manoeuvre?

The US decision to resume military aid and intelligence-sharing with Kyiv following the ceasefire agreement underscores the fragile nature of this truce. Washington’s involvement has been transactional, often tied to its own geopolitical interests. This was most recently evidenced by the revival of a rare earth minerals deal between Ukraine and the US. It raises concerns about whether the ceasefire is genuinely about de-escalation or merely a tool for securing economic and strategic advantages. Furthermore, Russia’s response remains uncertain. President Vladimir Putin has not committed to the ceasefire and past ceasefire attempts have been short-lived. If Moscow refuses to comply, the conflict will likely continue unabated, rendering this agreement ineffective. Additionally, the absence of concrete security guarantees for Ukraine in the joint US-Ukraine statement suggests that Kyiv may not have secured the long-term assurances it seeks.

The ceasefire’s success hinges on whether it fosters meaningful negotiations rather than merely serving as a pause before further escalation. If diplomacy does not follow, the war machine might restart with even greater intensity. While President Zelenskyy has signalled his commitment to peace, the burden now shifts to Russia — and to the US, which must ensure that its support is driven by the pursuit of stability rather than economic opportunism. For Ukraine, this truce is a chance to recalibrate. For the world, it is a test of whether diplomacy still holds any weight in an era of perpetual conflict.