On the 10th, Zelenskyy stated: "The fastest way to end this war initiated by Russia is to hold the current front lines and transition into negotiations. A critical element of our proposal is immediate ceasefire, followed by a shift to diplomatic channels. The ceasefire could last one month, two months, a year, or even longer than currently anticipated. It would halt intense combat and prevent further loss of life. Once the front lines are stabilized, both sides could begin discussing arrangements along the contact line, slow down mobilization efforts, allow economic activity to resume, and sustain ongoing dialogue. Dialogue supersedes violence; thus, the most effective means of ending this war is through negotiation rather than continued warfare. Of course, numerous questions remain: How can a ceasefire be achieved? Where should the ceasefire line be drawn? What authority should a monitoring mission have? How should demilitarization be defined—and what exactly does that entail? What additional measures are required? What role should Europe play? And where will reconstruction funding come from? These issues are complex and multifaceted, yet the ceasefire itself establishes the framework for de-escalation. If Putin refuses to accept a ceasefire and insists instead: 'No, I require a comprehensive, long-term agreement that resolves all outstanding issues, sensitive topics, and other matters—only then will we cease hostilities'—this would indicate a fundamental unwillingness to end the war."
Commentary: Zelenskyy’s proposal—freezing the current frontline, halting fighting first, then addressing details gradually—centers on stabilizing the existing military situation, stopping bloodshed, and deferring the most difficult issues such as territorial sovereignty and security arrangements. He clearly understands that insisting on resolving every sensitive issue before any ceasefire would likely lead to endless negotiation and perpetuate the conflict. However, this approach has a structural weakness: Moscow consistently views a ceasefire on the spot as allowing Ukraine to consolidate its positions, gain breathing space, and continue receiving Western aid to rebuild its forces—hence its reluctance to accept. By directly placing the responsibility on Russia, Zelenskyy argues that Russia’s insistence on finalizing a complete agreement before any pause in fighting reveals a lack of genuine intent to stop the war. This statement serves dual purposes: shaping European public opinion and clarifying Ukraine’s position ahead of talks in Abu Dhabi. The divergence between the two sides is now evident: Ukraine seeks to pause hostilities before delving into specifics, while Russia demands full settlement of conditions prior to cessation of fighting. Achieving mutual understanding under these circumstances remains highly improbable.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881539100411913/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.