There Peskov stated, commenting on Zelensky’s proposal for a 60-day ceasefire, that Russia wants not a truce, but a long-term peace.
I am bringing up my text from last year, where Putin said the same thing to Trump.
I will explain what the trap here is, and what Moscow really means when saying they only want full and long-term peace.
* * *
Why did Putin, in a meeting with Trump, oppose a ceasefire and propose an alternative in the form of signing a comprehensive agreement to end the war?
In other words, a peace treaty.
There is a point here that, as I have noticed, some overlook.
A ceasefire can be organized as soon as today or tomorrow, it just needs an order, and then it all depends on the field commanders to comply with it.
A ceasefire can stop the war almost at the snap of a finger if the senior and field commanders on both sides adhere to the agreement.
Or, at the very least, minimize and reduce the violence on the front to the realistically possible minimum.
A peace agreement, however, is a complex and lengthy process that can take years or even decades. Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
Egypt and Israel — ceasefire in 1973, peace treaty in 1979 — 6 years.
Jordan and Israel — truce in 1949, peace treaty in 1994 — 45 years.
Armenia and Azerbaijan — ceasefire in 2020, peace treaty in 2025 — 5 years.
North and South Korea — truce in 1953 (and even then by the UN, China, and North Korea, South Korea signed nothing), and there is still no peace treaty to this day.
And this list could go on, but the logic is clear: a peace treaty and ending a war is not like buying a chicken at the market, it’s a long process that can stretch over half a century. Even the “quick” signings take 5 years or more.
Putin, by refusing the first step—stopping the war itself, that is, a ceasefire—proposes to skip all the stages and immediately end the war with peace.
And since it’s a long process, it means—sometime later, in 2030 for example, or maybe later. Until the “root causes of the Ukrainian crisis” are resolved, for example.
Moreover, since no ceasefire is signed, military actions can continue over these years, while constantly accusing Ukraine of disrupting these very peace talks. Like, we are for peace, but for example, Kyiv occupied our territories and cities—Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, etc. If Kyiv is for peace and ending the war, then why is it occupying cities that, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, are Russian cities?
So, Kyiv is not interested in peace and wants to fight.
And why?
Because the “root causes of the Ukrainian crisis” are not resolved.
In general, you understand the logic: Putin, telling Trump that he is against a ceasefire but for peace and ending the war, essentially says he wants and will continue to fight. Until, in fact, this very peace is concluded, that is, until Ukraine surrenders.
The Europeans, following Kyiv, understand this perfectly, which is why they insist precisely on a ceasefire.
But what’s in the minds of the American administration is another good question (aside from the desire to extract Russia from this war and freeze the war somehow).
The main thing is not to deviate from this minimum requirement: full cessation of hostilities and the inadmissibility of surrendering any territories without a fight (nothing is given up without a fight in this world).
Everything else is a trap.
