Yavlinsky.ru, 05.06.2024

Photo by Svitlana Morenets // Getty Images

We have leveraged every possible opportunity at every turn to call for a ceasefire since the very start of the special military operation. Our appeals have become more and more insistent from November 2002 onwards, as specific military, political and strategic circumstances, making it possible to implement such a solution, have been added to the self-evident humanitarian factor. The need for the immediate conclusion of a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine was attributable to the actual situation both on the frontline and in the rear, as well as an understanding of potential development scenarios.

My article “Just Stop!” was published in February 2023, including the demand that all the participants in the confrontation agree to a suspension of the military actions. I said in the article that there would be no material changes on the battle field in the coming year, whereas the continuation of the military actions would lead to the loss of more and more lives, further serious destruction and even greater damage, moreover that foreign assistance to Ukraine would inevitably decline, while the risks of the escalation of the conflict into a major war would spiral. However, as I asserted in the article, neither Russia, nor Ukraine, the USA, the European Union or NATO — none of the direct participants in these tragic events — have displayed any desire to achieve a ceasefire. At the same time, however, it is worth noting here that high-ranking international military experts in the West have been talking about the need for a ceasefire in different formats since autumn 2022, such as General Mark Milley, who was at the time Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff of the United States Army, leading political analysts, researchers and political commentators. However, the current political elite and bureaucrats wielding power have opted not to listen to reason or understand what is actually happening.

After the publication of the article, I encountered a relentless barrage of criticism from both the opponents and proponents of the special military operation. Both sides were unanimous in their demands that the military actions should continue for the sake of “victory until the bitter end”.

Sixteen months have passed since then — and statements on the military stalemate and the need to conduct ceasefire negotiations by hook or by crook are articulated more and more frequently. Admittedly, for the time being this is not the predominant trend. However, such assessments are becoming more and more common. What has changed in this time?

In actual fact virtually nothing has changed on the battle field since autumn 2022. There have been immaterial territorial changes during this period, moreover not to the benefit of Ukraine. The prospects in this confrontation have also not changed: any continuation of the military actions did not hold out, and does not promise today, any positive outcome for either party in the conflict.

However, one thing has changed: the number of victims. People are dying every day. Nobody knows how many lives have been lost either over the past one and a half years, or since 24 February 2022, or since spring 2014. Incidentally, these deaths are on the conscience, inter alia, of anyone who has throughout this time advocated continuation of the military actions until “victory on the battle field”.

The magnitude of the destruction has also increased: many cities and villages, important industrial facilities, energy systems and infrastructure, have suffered, while the economy has been crippled significantly. The situation is becoming more and more complex and contradictory when it comes to the mood of the people and social psychology. How much will these trends expand and be exacerbated?

The format and substance of support for Ukraine from the West has also changed. We are witnessing far more doubt, inconsistency and ambiguity. The most recent exchanges of declarations between the Ukrainian authorities and Western leaders raise eyebrows and are frustrating and depressing.

These countries have countless serious political, economic and social problems of their own to resolve. The citizens of a number of Western countries are far less enthusiastic about sacrificing the comforts of their daily lives.

And this is the reason why today European leaders are already talking more and more frequently about the futility of any further military actions. The presidents, prime ministers, ministers of defence and foreign affairs of a number of European states have been advocating a review of the policy of the European Union in respect of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and have now, instead of pushing Ukraine to continue the military actions, as they had in the past, been promoting the idea of a ceasefire.

Moreover, today the Russian regime is already talking about a possible end to the military actions, albeit clearly on its own terms.  … However, these terms must be debated. This is how all negotiations start. However, we are not talking about trust here — this is all about tough diplomacy and work aimed at minimising the chance of being deceived. Admittedly, there is the matter of the specific individuals who should be involved in such discussions. However, if we are serious here, bureaucratic obstacle can be overcome if there is a will to do so. Meanwhile, in order to secure lasting guarantees, the discussion must be multilateral — as is the actual conflict. Russia and Ukraine must participate in the negotiations — but so should the USA and the European Union — and it would be a good idea to involve China as well.

The negotiations conducted only between the two parties in March-April 2002 in Istanbul demonstrated the futility of such a format. However, negotiations without the main participant in the conflict are ever more futile, if not downright meaningless. Any discussions should involve Russia.  Otherwise nothing will happen. And it is regrettable that such “peace conferences” without any Russian representative, such as the forum scheduled soon in Switzerland, will not deliver any significant positive outcome.

We must bring to an end all these amateur discussions on the need “to improve positions”, reach certain “frontiers”, “win back” some population centre prior to the discussion of any ceasefire agreement. Why is such thinking ill-advised?

First of all, as I have already said, positionally there has been a deadlock on the frontline since autumn 2022 and nothing presages any change. However, the key reason is that more lives are lost every day that the military actions continue. Territorial issues can be discussed for years and decades, whereas you can never recover the life of a 12-year girl who has been killed.  And it does not matter at all whether this girl is from Ukrainian Kharkiv or Russian Belgorod! Circumstances have evolved to a situation when the uncompromising fight for some form of absolute justice is leading to even more injustice — people are dying, children are dying. Irreversible tragedies are happening. The future is being lost forever.

There is also another critical reason why the war must stop and a ceasefire agreement must be struck. Over the past few months, against the backdrop of the continuing conflict, escalation has been gathering pace, bringing us closer to a major war where it is highly likely that nuclear weapons could be used. Western politicians have declared with increasing frequency that they are ready to send soldiers from NATO countries to Ukraine, while the use of Western weapons for strikes on Russian territory has been discussed at the highest level in the USA and the European Union. It was only to be expected that Russia would respond with a threat to use nuclear weapons. Moreover, they have already moved from words to action: there have been training manoeuvres using tactical nuclear weapons, while there have been drone attacks on the radar systems of the nuclear deterrent forces at Armavir and Orsk — these are all just a chain of events over the past few days. Is there any need to explain that there will no winners in a nuclear conflict?

Let me repeat here and insist: there is no other path and no other solution. Any other option only brings us closer to disaster. An agreement must be reached now.

Source