May the fourth year of the full-scale war be the last one? The most we can hope for this year is a cessation of hostilities. It might be the first step towards a peaceful settlement. However, even if such an agreement is reached, the probability of a lasting truce is extremely small. Why? Because the root cause of the conflict remains unresolved.
The idea of peacekeeping forces is very attractive, unless we proceed to its practical implementation. At the moment, it looks irrelevant. As for the prospects of military support for Ukraine from the United States, further developments directly depend on how far the US state institutions will allow Donald Trump to go in his attempts to break the law.
This opinion was expressed in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA by the co-director of foreign policy programmes, coordinator of international projects of Razumkov Centre, military expert Oleksiy Melnyk.
– What do you think the fourth year of the full-scale war in Ukraine will be like, in particular, taking into account the latest events and statements? Can it be the last one?
– In my opinion, the most we can hope for now, based on the statements and events, is a ceasefire or a temporary truce. When will this happen? There are different options. Even Trump has realised that it is unrealistic to end the war not only in 24 hours, but also within weeks or months.
But the probability that a ceasefire agreement will be reached does exist. And this is much more realistic than it was before Trump came to power. Whether this agreement, if reached between the US and Russia, or with the participation of Ukraine and European partners, can be implemented is another question. So, the probability of reaching these agreements is much higher than of their practical implementation.
The next question is how long this ceasefire can last. Here my forecasts are more pessimistic, because for this to happen, there must be trust in the party on which it primarily depends, that is, on Russia, or a mechanism of verification, implementation of these agreements, which does not exist today. Just as there is no trust that the Kremlin is interested in observing the ceasefire.
We are talking only about the first step, which could potentially lead to a peaceful settlement. But this does not solve the root causes of this conflict, as Putin likes to say. Until the problems that led to it are resolved or at least addressed appropriately, any attempts to resolve the conflict will end in the same way — at most a temporary ceasefire, but it is more likely that these agreements will be disrupted even at the stage of their negotiation.
– Do you think that peacemakers could make this truce not temporary, or at least lasting?
– You say, peacemakers, but this is not quite correct. Its meaning is distorted. They will actually be peacekeepers, who act when a peace agreement is in place, when both parties to a conflict agree to it. In the absence or at a very low level of trust between the warring parties, international forces are introduced, which are a priori non-aligned. They fill this vacuum of trust.
Another thing is when the international community, in the UN or under the banner of other international organizations, makes a decision to intervene in a conflict. Then they impose peace, they force the parties to the conflict to stop hostilities and provide for the implementation of this political decision by force.
So, if we are talking about the forces that support a peace accord, they are irrelevant now, because there is no such accord. This is the first point. The second one is that there is no political will, due to the specifics of this conflict — no one wants to take the risk of a direct military clash with the Russian army.
So the idea of peacekeepers is good, it sounds nice, but when it comes to its practical implementation, we should realise that it is unrealistic now. Maybe today we may speak about the deployment of some contingents from Western countries to protect infrastructure facilities. They are not peacekeepers. I don’t even know how to categorise them. This would mean further internationalization of this interstate conflict, nothing more.
– What role do you think the United States plays in this war today? In particular, taking into account the fact that the US has not only the president but also other branches of government.
– The new US administration is pushing unacceptable conditions for Ukraine, and this applies both to the root causes of the conflict and the possible ways of its settlement, actually pushing Ukraine to a defeat. I mean the infamous agreement on rare earth metals, actually demanded from Ukraine to repay the costs that the US has incurred and the potential costs that it may incur in the future.
All these conditions are unacceptable for Ukraine, and the choice here is between the bad and the worst. Either the Ukrainian leadership agrees to these conditions, and then the consequences will be catastrophic, or it does not agree, and then it is necessary to clearly understand how to minimize the risk in the event of a complete cessation of military and economic assistance from the United States.
But you correctly noted that the United States is not only President Trump, who as the head of state has extremely broad legal powers but is attempting to break the law in both home and foreign policies. How far state institutions, the political establishment, and the US judicial system will allow him to go will depend on future developments.
If the system of checks and balances does not work for him, then the only thing we can predict is that his steps will become even more unpredictable.
