Are we on the cusp of a 30-day ceasefire — a benchmark towards the end of a prolonged saga? If the utterance and conviction of US President Donald Trump hold true, such a reality is inevitable.

At the onset, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who in a televised address steadfastly expressed his refusal to accept Ukraine’s sovereignty, is at odds with the Ukrainian establishment, coupled with the blessing of international law and Western support both acknowledging the historic moment of statehood on July 16, 1990. For Putin, Ukraine is the creation of Russia following the communist revolution in 1917, and therefore the goal of the special military operation “is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kyiv regime for eight years. And for this we strive for the demilitarisation and de-Nazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians of the Russian Federation”.

In essence, the matter of contention stems from broken promises as well dating back to 1990 when Western leaders assured the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that Eastern extension was not an issue of interests. Hence the intrusion of up to 200,000 Russian troops on February 24, 2022 was an expression of paranoia and justification to allay future aspirations by the post-Cold War alliance.

Despite acknowledgement of liberation by the international community, circumstances surrounding the ejection of the left wing former President Viktor Yanukovych, a strong presence in Crimea that would later result in its annexation in 2014 and parallel attempts in the Donbas region climaxed with nationalistic discord between Russians and Ukrainians alike.

Efforts at a settlement gained the courtesy and endorsement of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), but the end product, the Minsk Accords, which were never ratified by either parliament, would later become the centrepiece of much violations.

MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS OF MINSK AGREEMENTS

* a ceasefire monitored by the OSCE that entailed the withdrawal of heavy weapons and military equipment jointly and the release of prisoners of war

* decentralisation that allows for regional autonomy of self-declared republics and acceptance of the organisation of local elections

* offering of special status to the likes of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Over time, both parties held each other liable for non-compliance. In the case of the Russians, the arrangement did not entertain their eagerness to control the disputed areas under scrutiny but underscored their laser-like focus on decentralisation, as opposed to security and border control. In contrast, Kyiv faced with public opinion that emanating from an arrangement that reeked of capitulation bore responsibility for reneging on unfavourable terms she previously accepted from a position of weakness. Ukraine was also on record condemning Russia of a deceptive referendum that the latter utilised as a weapon for legitimacy.

Three years later, the worst conflict in Europe since World War II is valued at over US$350 billion in direct military cost, accountable for an estimated one million fatalities, and is up for another round of inspection. At the helm is a conflicted Trump who seeks to engineer a deal in short order. The 78-year-old Republican, who once claimed an ability to resolve the crisis spontaneously, is not only willing to appease the Russians at the expense of their neighbours, but he is demanding his pound of flesh in the form of strategic minerals and more worth US$500 billion in exchange for uncertainty.

Has he forgotten or chosen to ignore history that references the fact that security without reservation was agreed to in 1994? As part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and the subsequent destruction of Ukraine’s military capability at the behest of America and company, the country was offered military protection.

Most recently, his effort — a two-hour conversation with Putin — has fallen on deaf ears yielding diplomatic posturing amidst a barrage of constant Russian attacks on Ukrainian villages. Nonetheless, Putin would later acquiesce to his American counterpart’s verbal condemnation and threat of sanctions to send a delegation to Istanbul to advance the groundwork for peace with Kyiv. With just the accomplishment of the release of 390 prisoners of war from both parties and a promise to stay the course with the discharge initiative, the pressure is mounting and talks will resume on June 2 at the same location.

If all else fails, the European Union, in response to Washington’s inconsistencies, demonstrates an unfaltering obligation through accelerated delivery of military aid which will be fortified with the advancement of initiatives inclusive of a Rearm European plan that could exceed 800 billion euros in defence spending over time.

Ironically, Germany — once intentionally silenced militarily by the Potsdam Agreement on August 1, 1945 — is gaining a rebirth of sorts. In light of American isolationism, this former superpower is leading the charge in support of Ukraine. Such is evident with a commitment by the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz of 5 billion euros in aid and joint production of long-range missiles affording the Ukraine more latitude in a lopsided conflict. Will these overtures be enough to pressure the Russians into bargaining in good faith?

The upcoming talks, both ceasefire and otherwise, will be fraught with obstacles; some likely to include decisions regarding Ukraine’s neutrality, Russian sovereignty over the contested areas, limitations to Ukraine’s military cooperation with the West, and the lifting of sanctions. On the other hand, Ukraine will also seek comparable compromises which could include a request for the return of a portion of seized territory, protection from future incursion, and Russian financial assistance for an estimated US$524 billion reconstruction and recovery project.

In the end, the triumph of this endeavour must be void of grandstanding and prejudice, and must include full and unpretentious participation of all associated parties regardless of status. Only such can reverse this cycle of destruction that has permeated our global society for so long.

Leroy A Binns, PhD, is an adjunct senior lecturer in the Department of Government at The University of the West Indies, Mona (Western Jamaica Campus).

Leroy A Binns

Dead bodies are placed into a mass grave on the outskirts of Mariupol, Ukraine, as people cannot bury their dead because of the heavy shelling by Russian forces.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (Photo: AP)