“The competition of various peace plans is continuing around the war in Ukraine. The most realistic and close to the situation on earth today is the plan of Donald Trump: ceasefire and truce, and then look. Ukraine is still insisting on the continuation of hostilities until real security guarantees. But European partners are trying to keep up and produce their own peace initiatives.”, – Write On: ua.news
The competition of various peace plans is continuing around the war in Ukraine. The most realistic and close to the situation on earth today is the plan of Donald Trump: ceasefire and truce, and then look. Ukraine is still insisting on continuing hostilities to obtain real security guarantees. But European partners are trying to keep up and produce their own peace initiatives. True, in some places openly of dubious quality.
After a summit in London a few days ago, a new plan made French leader Emmanuel Macron. French President proposes to install “a truce in the air, in the sea and in matters of energy infrastructure.” That is, he wants a moratorium on air and sea attacks, as well as blows to energy facilities during the month.
However, such a “truce” will not concern the fighting on earth, as well as artillery, mortar and other similar shelling. That is, it turns out that in fact it is the same continuation of the war, except in the “cut” version.
What specifically does Macron offer, how he motivates it and why is his idea openly unviable, if not to say harmful? Political observer Nikita Trachuk Together with the experts he dealt with the question.
Partially stop the fire: what is the essence of Macron’s plan
According to the French president, he does not believe in the truce offered by the United States and Russia. Therefore, France has put forward an alternative: the cessation of hostilities “in the air, in the sea and on energy infrastructure” per month.
At the same time, as we have noted, such a truce will in no way touch the fighting on earth. Because it is very difficult to check the ceasefire on the battlefield, Macron said.
That is, in fact, “truce” can not be called this, it is more about a loud newspaper headline. In reality, the war will continue as it continued. The Russians will continue to step, Ukrainians will defend and counterattack, no strokes, mortars, howitzers and artillery tools, etc.
However, Macron calls it “truce.” And this is the first point of his plan.
The second point is to send European peacekeepers to Ukraine. However, this is possible only after the parties conclude a peace agreement. Until the moment of European troops in the Ukrainian territory there will be no.
“There will be no European troops on Ukrainian land in the coming weeks. The question is how we use this time to try to achieve a truce and negotiations … After peace is signed, the deployment of troops will begin … Europe wants peace, but not at any cost, ”Macron said.
It is also interesting that both the President of France and the British Prime Minister Kir Starmer, who received the summit in London, noted that the full implementation of all of the above is possible only with the US participation. That is, it is necessary for Donald Trump for this idea to give this idea.
President Zelensky has already commented on this plan – the words “I’m aware of everything”. Although earlier the Ukrainian Head of State stated that against any forms of truce before receiving security guarantees.
Why Macron Plan is not realistic
Because it does not take into account two important things: America’s position and Russia’s position. And if with the American approach the French plan resonates at least partially, then the Kremlin in this case did not ask at all. However, the reality is that without the Russian Federation, unfortunately, no truce is impossible: it is its army that is now coming and continues aggression.
If you translate Macron’s initiative from diplomatic language to the general understanding, then it turns out to be like this: Russians have a significant advantage in aviation and fleet. So they need to stop using these forces in the war. They also need to stop beating the Ukrainian energy infrastructure, although they can do it quite effectively.
That is, Moscow has to give up its military advantage independently and voluntarily. Will she go for it? Of course not, why is it a Kremlin? The question is rhetorical.
Such proposals are frankly irrational and unrealistic, except for infantile. It feels that they are made solely to either publicly discard them or even seriously discussed.
Russia is moving forward and has a military advantage over the Armed Forces in many aspects. And it is from this competitive advantage that Macron invites the Russians to give up. It would be good, but why are it?
This is the same if Putin has made a proposal to give up drones, because Ukraine uses them very effectively, which prevents the Russian army from going forward. Would Ukraine go to it? No. As the Russian Federation does not go.
It seems that the calculation of Macron and other authors of this plan is as follows: Russia refuses, and the war continues. At the same time in Europe they receive another reason to declare that the Kremlin does not seek peace. That is, the status-quo will remain and nothing will actually change.
The main question is that Donald Trump will respond to Macron’s new initiative. His peace plan is now to stop the fire. The proposals of the French leader are contradictory. So far, there were no specific thoughts and positions on the US administration. However, Trump will most likely respond and continue to insist on his vision of the peace process.
And then the ball will be again on the field of Ukraine and its European partners. You will either have to return to the discussion of Trump’s proposals, or go for a confrontation with Washington and continue to fight, but without the help of the US.
Expert opinions
Military Expert, SBU Colonel retired Oleg Starikov considers the plan of Emmanuel Macron unrealistic. According to Starikov, Macron pursues his own goals and tries to “sit on two chairs.”
“I would call it all the” Macron dilemma. ” He breaks between friendship with Washington and friendship with London. Ukraine acts here as a means. What Macron has now suggested – it does not completely contradict Trump’s plan, as if it supports him, but not. The bottom line is that both France and Britain want to take part in the post -war arrangement of Ukraine, in a general post -conflict world order. That all this is not divided between Washington and Moscow, and that Kyiv, Paris and London are included in this configuration. There is a logic.
Only we seem to be a sovereign state. And we need to determine who is a strategic partner for us. Trump He wants to make Ukraine an ally in an economic sense. Not in the military, but in the economic, getting big investment here. But Zelensky and European partners put a military component in the first place, ”the expert explains.
Starikov believes that Ukraine needs to decide on what is more profitable for it: economic component or military. The future depends on this choice.
“Trump wants to work with Ukraine on how the United States worked with the Federal Republic of Germany. And Paris and London want to turn us into a “Sparta”. To choose us … Macron does everything possible for ourselves, for the interests of France. This is his peace plan, ”Oleg Starikov summarized.
Political scientist, head of the Center for Applied Political Studies “Penta” Vladimir Fesenko He also expresses skepticism on Macron’s initiative. However, the expert notes that in this regard, there are right and rational ideas.
“Zelensky in his post in X, which is perceived as an attempt to reconcile with Trump, wrote about the same plan: a partial truce calling for the Russians to take some steps. This is an indicative moment. Ukraine also joins this game. And another important circumstance: Macron’s idea was not supported by most of the participants of the summit in London. The older said that “other options and ideas were considered.”
That is, it should not be seen as a single position in Europe. This is Macron’s individual idea. In a practical sense, I perceive it with great skepticism. The point is to demonstrate readiness to participate in peace negotiations and to offer a preliminary intermediate plan of preparation of the transition for ceasefire. It is Trump’s playing, which also stands for ceasefire, ”the expert explains.
Fesenko points to obvious contradictions. According to him, Trump wants a ceasefire, but Russia does not want it, and this is a problem.
“We have some illusion, a stupid myth that Putin wants a ceasefire. No, doesn’t want! He wants peace talks directly during the war and signing a peace agreement. But not a ceasefire! That’s what Putin wants. And what Americans offer, in my opinion, he is in our interests. This is a ceasefire without much concessions from Ukraine. This should be used.
But ceasefire on land requires a clear line of contact. Which line to stop the fire? There is no answer… and so Macron suggested as a transitional step of ceasefire in the air, at sea and regarding blows on energy. Therefore, the idea is beautiful. But it is also necessary to negotiate. Because it is impossible to stop the fire unilaterally, it is surrender. It is possible only by both parties, and this should still be agreed, ”Fesenko notes.
The political scientist says Macron proposes such negotiations for tactical reasons. He wants to check that Russia is ready to stop the fire, and what is the point of its supply.
“From the point of view of the strategic end of the war, this is not enough. But in terms of Russian verification, this idea is normal. Plus this tactical technique: start negotiations with the US and demonstrate the readiness of Ukraine and Europe. And then you need to sit at the table with Russia. But how to do it all how to control the ceasefire in the air? I’m talking about drones. There are no mechanisms for controlling them. But you have to negotiate, it is inevitable … So there is a certain meaning in Macron’s ideas. But this is a tactical technique and nothing more, ”Vladimir Fesenko summarized.
In the end, we can make a rather obvious conclusion: there is no simple decision in Ukraine and the war in our country. But at the same time, paradoxically, sometimes the simplest solutions are the most correct. Peace is a precious thing, and it is possible to at least try to realistically achieve it. Discuss and try to implement any plans and initiatives, including American ones.
If it does not work, it will not work. But in Ukraine, at least understanding that it has at least tried and made any effort to implement.
At the same time, as plans for individual European partners, only on paper sounds like peaceful. In fact, if you understand, everything looks as if these proposals are only put forward to be rejected. And everything remains as it is, “to the best of times.” But whether these times will come at all is a very big question.
Nikita Trachuk