The prospect of a ceasefire in Ukraine, as suggested by sources close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, raises critical questions about the future of the conflict and the broader geopolitical landscape. President Putin’s purported readiness to negotiate a halt to the fighting based on current battlefield lines needs scrutiny, particularly its motivation. Mr Putin’s frustration with the Western-backed resistance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskky’s refusal to engage in talks suggests a strategic recalibration rather than a genuine move towards peace.

By freezing the conflict at the existing frontlines, Russia would solidify its control over substantial territories in eastern Ukraine, thereby achieving a significant portion of its war aims without the need for further escalation. However, accepting such a ceasefire on these terms would effectively reward aggression and set a dangerous precedent in international relations. It would legitimise the forcible redrawing of borders, undermining the principle of territorial integrity that underpins the post-World War II international order. Moreover, the internal dynamics within Russia cannot be overlooked. The reluctance to initiate another national mobilisation, driven by the public backlash and the exodus of draft-age men during the first call-up, highlights Mr Putin’s constraints. While his grip on power remains firm, the social and economic toll of the war is mounting. Veterans returning from the frontlines with limited prospects for employment and income pose a potential risk of unrest. Thus, a ceasefire could be a way to mitigate these internal pressures without appearing to capitulate.

From the Ukrainian perspective, any ceasefire that consolidates Russian gains will be unacceptable. President Zelenskky’s steadfast commitment to reclaiming all lost territories, including Crimea, reflects nationalistic fervour. Ceding ground to Russia would leave Ukraine perpetually vulnerable to future incursions and undermine its sovereignty. But Mr Zelenskky too faces the problem that Mr Putin does and perhaps to a greater measure – the shortage of soldiers. The international community must balance these imperatives. While there is a clear desire to avoid a protracted and bloody conflict, any peace initiative must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The substantial military aid packages and diplomatic support provided to Kyiv are predicated on the belief that a just and sustainable peace can only be achieved through the restoration of Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders. The proposed Swiss peace summit, convened without Russian participation, underscores the complexities of brokering a resolution. While bringing together a broad coalition of nations to support Ukraine is a positive step, the exclusion of Russia raises questions about the efficacy and legitimacy of such talks. True peace will ultimately require direct engagement with Moscow, however unpalatable that may be. Mr Putin’s tentative ceasefire offer should be approached with caution. While it presents a potential pathway to de-escalation, it is laden with strategic calculations aimed at solidifying Russian territorial gains and alleviating domestic pressures. The international community must navigate this delicate situation with a firm commitment to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, ensuring that any resolution does not inadvertently reward aggression