Ukraine appears to be heading towards a hasty ceasefire, one that is unlikely to secure lasting peace in Eastern Europe. The likely outcome of negotiations, influenced by both the Trump and Putin camps, could result in a decade of persistent guerrilla warfare across large parts of Europe and its borderlands with Asia.
A climate of fear in Kyiv
In Kyiv, the prevailing mood is one of anxiety and trepidation. Many Ukrainians fear that high-level negotiations are taking place without their consent and that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government may be forced into accepting a pre-determined agreement with little room for manoeuvre.
The terms from Moscow’s perspective have been evident since last summer. Russia aims to retain control over all the territories it has seized, with Crimea and the Donbas industrial region forming the crux of its territorial ambitions.
Moreover, Ukraine, whether led by Zelensky or a successor, would be compelled to adopt a stance of political and military neutrality—effectively ruling out NATO membership indefinitely and delaying progress towards European Union accession.
Key developments in Munich
These stipulations are expected to be officially articulated at the Munich Security Conference, which commences on Friday. U.S. Vice President JD Vance is scheduled to meet President Zelensky and is expected to present him with a proposal that, in any other context, would resemble an ultimatum.
Several contentious issues remain unresolved. A major question is how any potential agreement would be enforced. Reports suggest that Britain has been considering leading a European peacekeeping and monitoring force comprising 24,000 troops, potentially supplemented by Chinese and Indian contingents. However, the feasibility of such an operation is questionable.
Given the current state of Britain’s armed forces, assembling a force of that magnitude within a short timeframe appears highly unrealistic. Furthermore, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has reportedly indicated that there will be no additional funding for such a mission, meaning any deployment would need to be financed within the existing Ministry of Defence budget.
A repeat of history?
The situation has drawn comparisons to historical events, particularly the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in which Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union secretly agreed to divide Poland. That agreement led to the occupation and partitioning of Poland, an eerie echo of the country’s prior division by European powers in the late 18th century.
Many in Kyiv fear that Ukraine is facing a modern-day equivalent, with the nation’s fate being decided in discussions held beyond its borders. There are growing concerns that such an arrangement would not only fail to secure peace but could also entrench long-term instability, with resistance forces continuing to operate within Russian-occupied territories and the broader region.
The wider implications for Europe
The implications of a hurried ceasefire extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. Should Russia retain the territory it has captured, it would represent a significant propaganda victory for Vladimir Putin, allowing him to claim strategic success despite the immense costs of the war. Such an outcome would embolden Moscow while demonstrating to other authoritarian regimes that military aggression can yield substantial territorial and political gains.
At the same time, a prolonged insurgency could engulf much of Eastern Europe in a persistent state of conflict. Should Ukrainian resistance fighters continue their struggle against Russian occupation, Europe could see a resurgence of hybrid warfare tactics, with acts of sabotage, asymmetric engagements, and cyber warfare becoming the norm.
This prospect presents a formidable challenge for NATO and the EU. If Ukraine is pushed into accepting an unsatisfactory deal, Western allies may be compelled to provide ongoing covert support for resistance efforts while navigating an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.
More Read
A precarious future
As the Munich Security Conference looms, the coming days will be crucial in determining Ukraine’s future. While some may argue that an imperfect peace is preferable to indefinite conflict, many Ukrainians remain deeply sceptical of any agreement that leaves their sovereignty compromised and their ambitions curtailed.
What remains clear is that the consequences of any settlement will be felt far beyond Kyiv, shaping the security landscape of Europe for years to come. Whether Ukraine’s allies will be able to craft a viable alternative to Moscow’s terms, or whether they will capitulate to geopolitical pragmatism, remains to be seen.
