Ukraine: what to make of the fragile Easter ceasefire?
On Holy Saturday Vladimir Putin unilaterally announced a 30-hour ceasefire, which was accepted by Ukraine. While the truce was only partially observed on the front lines, there were no air strikes on either side. Commentators analyse the situation in light of Donald Trump's threat to withdraw US mediation if the parties refuse to cooperate.
Europe must remain steadfast in its support
Kyiv can only rely on itself and Europe in this war, Ilta-Sanomat stresses:
“Only Ukraine and the European countries that support it seem to have a genuine desire for a just peace. Russia wants to continue its war of conquest, while the current US administration, for its own inexplicable reasons, wants to rush the war to its conclusion with little regard for the terms or the fate of Ukraine. Ukraine has no choice but to continue defending itself, and Europe has no choice but to continue supporting Ukraine and strengthening its own defences.”
Tiny grains of mutual trust
In a Telegram post picked up by Echo, journalist Farida Rustamova sees a certain rapprochement between the warring parties over Easter:
“Zelensky and Putin have admitted that the intensity of the fighting has decreased on both sides. ... Putin did not blame Kyiv for the failure of the Easter ceasefire. Zelensky said there had been no airstrikes on Ukraine on Sunday and 'this format of calm is the easiest to continue'. He suggested Russia impose a 30-day moratorium on attacks on civilian targets. Putin did not completely reject this proposal. And (surprisingly) did not even rule out direct contact with Ukraine on this issue ... Tiny grains of mutual trust are detectable.”
A message to Washington
On the France Inter website, columnist Pierre Haski sees the ceasefire as a signal to the US president:
“Announcements of ceasefires like this one are primarily a communication strategy. ... This time it's Putin who is sending a message to Trump. Just 24 hours before Russia announced a ceasefire, the US president had expressed his frustration at the lack of progress in the negotiations aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. The 'king of the deal' who had promised peace within 24 hours has achieved nothing so far, and his administration has threatened to walk away if no progress is made. Moscow and Kyiv are therefore now stepping up their efforts so that in the event of failure the buck can be passed on to the other side.”
Too much at stake for both Trump and Putin
Commenting on Spotmedia, journalist Emilian Isaila doubts that the US will abandon Ukraine:
“I don't think Trump will have the courage to suspend military aid to Ukraine again because of the tensions within his cabinet after he took that decision in March only to withdraw it just a few days later. Trump can't afford the political risk of the opposition accusing him of allowing innocent people in Ukraine to be killed. It will be interesting to see how Putin reacts in the coming days. Will the Kremlin boss allow Trump to withdraw from the negotiations? In my opinion, the danger for the Russian president is so great that he will resist. We will see how.”
Peace hardly possible without third-party involvement
In Bernardinai, military expert Darius Antanaitis examines the possibility of achieving peace without Washington's mediation:
“A long-term peace agreement without US involvement is possible in theory, given that the negotiations would ultimately have to take place between Ukraine and Russia. However a third force with sufficient clout will be needed to influence both sides. So a lasting ceasefire and a solid agreement would be conceivable without the US - because what Ukraine needs above all is a long-term security guarantee. And if necessary the US is not the only state that can provide this, but China, too, for example.”