How a one-month truce in Ukraine could lead to a permanent ceasefire

Before Emmanuel Macron’s proposed one-month truce, there was a plan to halt strikes on energy infrastructure between Russia and Ukraine. Officials from Kyiv and Moscow even flew to Qatar to hold preliminary talks over the idea.

It was hoped that by striking a tacit agreement on a partial ceasefire covering energy infrastructure, Ukraine could gauge if Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, was ready to commit to broader peace talks.

There was progress.

Russian and Ukrainian intelligence officials reached an understanding and the number of long-range strikes on each country’s energy infrastructure dropped.

But then Ukraine sprung a surprise attack, opening up a salient inside Russia’s southern Kursk region, leading to a collapse in the negotiations.

The idea of a partial pause was revived by Mr Macron, France’s president, as he flew back from a gathering of international leaders in London on Sunday.

He said the one-month ceasefire would cover attacks “in the air, at sea and on energy infrastructure”.

In theory, the wider war would temporarily end and any fighting would be contained to positional jostling between Ukrainian and Russian troops on the front lines.

Mr Macron believes his proposal will serve as a test as to whether Putin really wants to sit down for peace talks, as Donald Trump has claimed.

It will also test claims by the US president that he does not need to offer security guarantees to Ukraine because he trusts his Russian counterpart not to break any settlement.

Any temporary ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia would also not see Kyiv offered Western support in enforcing the agreement.

It would simply act as a precursor to a final settlement, which the likes of France and the UK insist must deliver a lasting, durable peace.

This is when the “coalition of the willing”, led by Mr Macron and Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, would seek to deploy troops to Ukraine.

Under the initial plans, Western governments would commit to using fighter jets to police Ukraine’s skies, naval assets to patrol the Black Sea and ground troops to protect critical infrastructure and train Ukrainian soldiers.

The US is being asked to provide intelligence and logistical support to make the operation possible.

European countries involved in the scheme want this to come with a US “backstop”, essentially a promise from Washington to respond with lethal force if troops inside Ukraine are attacked by Russia or its proxies.

For this, the US would station missiles and fighter jets on standby in Eastern Europe, most likely in Poland and Romania, and be capable of striking within minutes of any aggression.

This part of the settlement, however, feels a long way off, with no real faith in either Ukraine or Europe that Mr Trump is moving closer to agreeing to a deal.

Macron’s haste

Mr Macron appeared to jump the gun when he announced the initial ceasefire proposal.

The French president, who believes he is one of Europe’s great strategic thinkers, has a history of floating ideas before they are agreed internationally.

British officials have poured cold water on the strategy for now. Luke Pollard, the Armed Forces minister, told Sky News: “The very real worry that Ukrainians have is that any short pause in the war simply allows the Russians time to re-arm, regroup and reinvade.”

Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, was also not ready to endorse the ceasefire because it did not come with any hard security guarantees.

“If you don’t have an end to the war and you don’t have security guarantees, no one is able to control a ceasefire,” he told reporters at London’s Stansted Airport before flying back to Ukraine.