The energy ceasefire is counterproductive

There is a lot of talk about ceasefire negotiations these days. In this video I discuss what it takes for a ceasefire to be a step toward lasting peace. Unfortunately, the current partial ceasefire on energy infrastructure doesn't meet the requirements and is more likely to be counterproductive.

Watch the video here or read the transcript below.

Best,
Anders

Transcript:

Since Donald Trump took office at the end of January, there's been a shift in the rhetoric about ending the war in Ukraine. In the beginning, he was talking about ending the war very quickly, and then gradually he started talking about a longer and longer time period. Now he's talking about maybe ending the war within this year. So the time perspective has been extended, but another shift has been in what ending the war looks like. In the beginning, there was talk about a peace deal. So the goal was to achieve peace, but lately it's become more and more a discussion about a ceasefire. And that is significant because a ceasefire is something that is very different from a peace deal. So in this video, I want to discuss what a ceasefire is and what it will take for a ceasefire to actually be helpful in terms of ultimately achieving peace. So let's talk about it.

A ceasefire is not a peace deal. A peace deal is a permanent thing. It outlines the conditions for what peace will look like after the war has ended. A ceasefire is just a temporary pause. It's the two sides agreeing that for a limited period of time or within a certain scope of military activities, they will not shoot at each other.

There are actually two ceasefire agreements already that Ukraine, Russia and the United States have agreed upon. The first one is a ceasefire on energy infrastructure, and that will last for 30 days. And that is supposedly in force right now. Both sides are accusing each other of violating that limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure. The reality is that it has not led to a reduction in the overall shooting. It just means that there has been a slight change in targeting. They don't shoot at energy infrastructure as much as they used to. So, for example, we have not seen the spectacular attacks on Russian oil infrastructure that Ukraine used to make, but it hasn't reduced the fighting overall. And in fact, while the ceasefire on energy infrastructure has been in place, Russia has escalated the attacks on Ukraine. So it looks like they are actually about to start a bigger push in connection with a spring offensive.

The other ceasefire agreement that they have made is about a maritime ceasefire, meaning that they will stop shooting at each other in the Black Sea. And this has not yet come into effect because after signing these agreements, then the Russians have made some additional demands that they want some sanctions relief before this maritime ceasefire can take effect. So even though they agreed on a maritime ceasefire, it has not actually materialized.

So these are the two ceasefire agreements being talked about right now. However, I think it's important to note that this is not the first time during this full-scale invasion that we've seen ceasefire agreements. There have been ceasefire agreements before. What comes to mind for me is the ceasefire agreements related to the discussions of a humanitarian corridor that would go from Mariupol while that city was besieged in the beginning of the invasion. There was a lot of talk about these humanitarian corridors and time-limited ceasefires to allow civilians to get out. And some of them were violated, others did materialize. So this is not the first time during this war that we've seen ceasefires between Russia and Ukraine.

So ceasefires are not necessarily a step toward lasting peace. It's an agreement to stop shooting at each other for a period of time because it serves some specific purpose in that situation. But if we want to talk about ceasefires as something that could lead to lasting peace, then it has to be a specific type of ceasefire that actually facilitates peace negotiations.

And the most important role that ceasefires can play in connection with peace negotiations is that they can be a confidence building measure. One of the big problems when you want to have peace negotiations is that the two sides in the war, they don't trust each other. There is so much animosity, there is so much distrust that it's impossible to have meaningful conversations. Because they are deeply skeptical that the other side will honor their promises and therefore they will be reluctant to make any kinds of concessions that could leave them vulnerable. So in that case, having a ceasefire can be a way to start building some of that trust that is necessary for making a bigger agreement at a later point.

A ceasefire can also provide a period of calm and quiet where you don't have this daily intense pressure of the ongoing fighting. It can free up some mental bandwidth in the government and that can give some political room for maneuver because you don't have to you don't have all these constant emergencies that demand your attention.

So we can say that in order for a ceasefire to be conductive to actual peace negotiations, it must meet two requirements. First, it must be a confidence building measure. It must build a level of trust that despite the war, you can make agreements with the enemy and they will not break them. And second, it must provide a break from the fighting so that there is political room for peace negotiations rather than the day to day military decisions.

And that leaves the obvious question, can the current ceasefire agreements serve as a basis for genuine peace negotiations? And unfortunately, I think the answer is no. The current ceasefire agreements don't meet any of these requirements. The limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure benefits Russia more than Ukraine. It means that Ukraine cannot target Russia's oil infrastructure, which Ukraine sees as an important part of its long term strategy for how to win the war.

Ukraine has been forced to accept this because they want to continue receiving American support. But this does not build confidence that Russia is entering these negotiations in good faith. Rather, it gives the impression that Russia is using the negotiations to manipulate Ukraine's military possibilities because it makes the Americans impose limitations on what targets Ukraine can go after.

And also, this limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure does not give a period of calm and quiet where Ukraine can focus on peace negotiations. Rather, it has meant that Russia has changed its targeting to make an even bigger impact on the lives of ordinary Ukrainians. So instead of hitting Ukrainian energy infrastructure, a bigger number of the Russian drones are now instead hitting Ukrainian cities. The ceasefire is actually increasing the stress level on the Ukrainian population and the Ukrainian government. And that obviously does not create conditions that are, say, conducive for peace negotiations. It might make sense if the Russians are trying to force the Ukrainians into capitulation, but it does not really foster an environment for negotiations about a compromise.

If you want to have a ceasefire that can lead to real peace negotiations, then what you need is almost the opposite of what we have now. You need a period of time where you ease the pressure on the front line and you don't have constant air raid alerts in Ukrainian cities. And if Putin were genuinely interested in peace negotiations, then the Russians would do that. They would be careful to avoid situations where they hit hospitals or apartment buildings or other civilian infrastructure, because these actions make it practically impossible for Zelensky and the Ukrainian government to enter real negotiations. But the Russians are not doing that. On the contrary, they're scaling up these attacks that make it difficult to have peace negotiations.

Ukraine actually did offer a 30-day complete and unconditional ceasefire. That could perhaps have created the conditions that I'm talking about here with the ceasefire as this confidence building measure and something that would give a period of quiet where peace negotiations are possible. But Russia rejected that, and instead we now have this limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure, which might actually be counterproductive.

So it's important to be aware that a ceasefire does not automatically lead to peace. And it's a mistake to assume that the current talks about ceasefires will lead to peace negotiations. On the contrary, I think unfortunately the American behavior over the last couple of months has probably prolonged the war because it's given Putin confidence that he's on the path to victory. So they don't have an incentive to reach a ceasefire that can lead to real negotiations about ending the war.

OK, I will end it here. If you found the video helpful or informative, then please give it a like. And also remember to subscribe to the channel and click the bell icon to get notifications when I upload new videos. And if you want to support the channel, you can subscribe to my newsletter at www.logicofwar.com. Thank you very much for watching and I will see you again next time.