Ceasefire is beneficial to Ukraine tactically, but not strategically

Turkey has started talking about a ceasefire; the Chinese representative has gone on another "peacekeeping" mission.

Obviously, for various reasons, the world is not ready for either a decisive defeat of Russia or a decisive defeat of Ukraine.

And the situation is such that in the near future Russia will have a military advantage at the front, and it is not clear how long it will last (as long as the situation in the US is "hanging").

But if the ceasefire agreement, i.e. the "freezing" of the situation, is indeed reached, it will not only partially legitimise Russia's conquests, but will also... make Ukraine look like an aggressor, in a sense, if it dares to be the first to break this agreement in order to finally regain the territories occupied by Russia.

Therefore, tactically, a ceasefire at this stage may be beneficial to Ukraine to a certain extent, but strategically, it is extremely disadvantageous. After the "freeze", despite Russia's threat, everyone will have  many reasons to "relax": after all, Russia has finally shown some "adequacy", and the situation is no longer so hot that we have to devote maximum effort and attention to it.

It's a tough choice, and one in which I would like to sincerely wish Zelenskyy and his advisers wisdom, no matter how disgusting it is to watch their other actions.

Source

About the author. Oleksiy Panych, philosopher, member of the Ukrainian Centre of PEN International, blogger.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.