On March 2, 2025, French President Emmanuel Macron said that France and the United Kingdom proposed a partial ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine for a month. But it is worth noting that this agreement does not limit ground combat. At the same time, Europe announced that it will fully withdraw its ground forces in Ukraine in the coming weeks, no longer providing direct security guarantees. Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his "appreciation" for this, but the interpretations of all parties are completely different. Is this agreement a key part of the peace movement, or is it a strategic game against the tide of war? We can try to dissect the controversial ceasefire from multiple perspectives and its possible far-reaching implications.
What is the real meaning of an armistice: a peace signal or a tactical tool?
The core content of the armistice agreement between Britain and France included four points: the armistice was for a period of one month; suspension of air and sea conflicts; ensuring the safety of energy facilities; However, there is no explicit prohibition on ground combat. This design seems reasonable, but it is deeply controversial.
For the Russian army, air power is its core advantage on the battlefield, especially in the surprise attack of the airborne troops and the cover of aerial artillery fire, and restricting air combat will inevitably have a certain impact on the efficiency of the Russian army. However, the agreement's "open" approach to ground combat may allow Russia to be more flexible in its strategic advance. On the other hand, although Ukraine has lost the opportunity to counterattack from the air, with the help of the armistice, it can buy time to restore its forces and enlist more assistance from its international allies. The agreement is a game of time and tactics – with both sides trying to use the ceasefire window to achieve strategic realignment rather than a real start to peace.
More controversially, the true intentions of Britain and France, as the main architects of the agreement, have been questioned. Some analysts believe that this agreement may be a strategy for Europe to readjust its combat power for Ukraine, after all, in a ground war, the Ukrainian army can use external assistance to redeploy on the defensive line. The issuance of the armistice was more of a diplomatic maneuver to "buy time" than a prelude to peace.
Behind Europe's Withdrawal: Strategic Autonomy or Hidden Risk Aversion?
As the initiator of the agreement, Europe also announced the complete withdrawal of troops in Ukraine and the suspension of direct ground military support. This move begs one to ponder, what is Europe trying to achieve by "withdrawing from the front line"?
In recent years, Europe, especially Britain and France, have emphasized "strategic autonomy" in an attempt to get rid of their excessive dependence on the United States. In the case of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Europe wants to reduce its own risks as a direct participant, while at the same time using its mediation role to demonstrate its ability to lead in international affairs. The armistice agreement may be a form of soft intervention, which will neither fully follow the line of tough US sanctions against Russia, nor avoid the impact of a direct confrontation with Russia.
In addition, this decision to withdraw troops from Europe is closely related to internal economic and security issues. Since the Russia-Ukraine war, high energy costs and inflation have forced European countries to re-examine their foreign and military policies. An armistice could temporarily ease the pressure on the European economy from the war in Ukraine, and a withdrawal could leave more room for maneuver in its own policies.
Russia's strategy: active versus passive in a ceasefire
Putin expressed "appreciation" for the armistice agreement, which reflects Russia's thinking about the current situation. On the one hand, the ceasefire in the air and at sea did limit the pace of the Russian army's offensive, but on the other hand, this agreement also allowed the Russian army to consolidate its current ground superiority and avoid a high-cost all-round advancement.
What's more, Russia can also put pressure on Europe through this agreement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has publicly pointed out that behind the armistice agreement proposed by European countries, it is intended to prolong the conflict and weaken the potential of the Russian army. However, Russia is clearly aware that Europe wants to gain more initiative in international politics while decoupling from the United States. Therefore, Putin strategically endorsed the agreement, but also reserved room for active adjustment for future changes in the war situation.
Looking ahead: Where does conflict go from here?
Will an armistice bring peace to the Russia-Ukraine war? The answer is far from optimistic. At present, it seems that this agreement is more likely to be a transitional tool for the parties to adjust their combat capabilities, rather than a decisive solution for stabilizing the situation. Judging by the logic of Britain and France pushing for this agreement, Europe wants to demonstrate its independence in global affairs through this move; Ukraine wants to take advantage of the opportunity to rally more support, while Russia wants to consolidate its vested interests.
In the future battlefield, whether on the ground, in the air or in the diplomatic field, Russia and Ukraine will continue to play a game around combat power, resources and international support. From the economic to the military, from the divergent positions of the Western camp to the respective strategies of Russia and Ukraine, this ceasefire agreement seems to be only a brief episode in a protracted war.
All this tells us that a ceasefire does not equal peace. The end of the war requires deeper changes and a more determined and unified effort by the international community.
