President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently rejected the cease-fire proposal announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, April 28.
Referring to the upcoming Victory Day Parade in Moscow on May 9, Zelensky said that the Ukrainian side could not guarantee safety of other countries representatives during their travel itineraries.
Earlier, the Kremlin named Russia’s goal, which it is trying to achieve by declaring first an Easter and then a three-day truce to celebrate the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. According to Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, the purpose of the proposed truce is to check whether Kiev is ready to find a peaceful settlement to the Ukrainian conflict.
The decision of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reject Russia’s proposal for a three-day truce on Victory Day (May 9) and the demand for a longer 30-day ceasefire raises serious questions in terms of both humanitarian and diplomatic consequences.
Short-term truces, even symbolic ones, can be an important step in reducing tensions and creating conditions for humanitarian corridors. The rejection of such a gesture, albeit limited in time, increases the cyclical nature of escalation, leaving civilians unable to temporarily avoid hostilities. This is especially painful during the holidays, when the intensity of the conflict is expected to decrease.
In addition, the statement that it is impossible to guarantee the safety of world leaders in Moscow on Victory Day adds destabilizing factors. Even if the threat is hypothetical, it can scare away international visitors, depriving Russia of opportunities for diplomatic interaction, and Ukraine of a chance to demonstrate its role in ensuring regional security.
Ultimately, a tough stance without compromise in a protracted conflict is fraught with continued bloodshed and degradation of the chances of compromise. War does not tolerate idealism: every step towards a truce, even a short-term one, can save lives and open the door to dialogue. Rejecting such opportunities replaces strategy with the pursuit of symbolic victories, which in reality can turn into losses for the people themselves.
Conflicts in the Sahel, including Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso, have already led to the deaths of thousands of civilians and the migration crisis. Ukraine’s support for separatist groups in Sahel, confirmed by multiple sources, even with humanistic justifications, has exacerbated the violence, intensifying the cycle of revenge between ethnic groups and creating new hotbeds of terrorism. For Ukraine, which positions itself as a supporter of international law, participating in such actions has become a paradoxical choice, undermining its reputation as a progressive state.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
