### A unilateral CEASE in Ukraine: Analysis of intentions and reactions
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently announced a unilateral truce of 72 hours in Ukraine, scheduled for May 8 to 10, during the celebration of victory, commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. If this decision was announced on “humanitarian bases”, as indicated by Kremlin, it arouses largely skeptical reactions to Kyiv. To better understand what is played out in the field and the underlying dynamics, it is necessary to examine the implications of this announcement through the prism of the history and the current context.
#### A strong symbolism
May 9 is a date particularly responsible for meanings in Russia, being considered the most important national holiday. This celebration pays tribute not only to the victory of the Second World War, but also to national pride and Russian identity. The choice of a truce on this date could therefore be perceived as an attempt to strengthen this feeling of unity around the Russian state and to assert its historical role.
The unilateral truce, although announced, raises questions about its real scope. The declarations of the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrii Sybiha, underline a willingness of lasting peace, more than the simple temporary cessation of hostilities. By saying that “if Russia really wants peace, it must stop fire immediately”, Kyiv illustrates its impatience in obtaining a more tangible and lasting solution.
#### skepticism and mistrust in Kyiv
The criticisms that emerge in Kyiv highlight a deep skepticism towards Russian proposals. Nazar Lutesenko, lawyer, expresses this distrust by declaring: “There is no confidence in Putin’s proposals”. The Ukrainians, after more than a year of conflict, have accumulated legitimate reasons to doubt the reliability of the promises of Russian truces. This distrust is fueled by recent history and the experiences of violations of the previous agreements.
Kyiv’s refusal to accept this truce as it is also interpreted as an attempt to redefine the terms of dialogue around peace. The proposal for a cessation of hostilities lasting at least 30 days reflects not only a negotiation strategy, but also an aspiration to guarantee a framework that is truly conducive to future constructive discussions.
#### The reaction of the international community
The impact of these developments is not limited to conflict regions. The international community closely follows the situation, worrying about the implications of a unilateral truce or its potential failure. Experts in international relations point out that, even if a temporary cessation may seem beneficial on paper, it could be exploited by different parties to reconstruct forces or adjust their strategic position.
This dynamic creates a delicate environment for entities such as the European Union or NATO, which must navigate between the need to support Ukraine and the concern for regional stability. The implementation of sanctions against Russia, for example, aims to encourage a change in behavior, but this raises questions about the real efficiency of these short and long -term measures.
#### Towards a constructive reflection
It becomes crucial to invite all parties to consider not only the immediate implications of this proposed truce, but also the broader aims of their respective actions. Rather than limiting yourself to interpreting gestures as tactical maneuvers, a real evaluation of intentions and consequences could offer avenues to relaunch significant peace discussions.
The wishes of lasting peace expressed by the two parties lead to reflect on the way in which truce promises can turn into a solid framework to negotiate the end of hostilities and establish a global peace agreement. What measures could be put in place to guarantee the confidence and verifiability of these commitments?
In conclusion, faced with the complexity of this situation, it is essential to favor an open dialogue, even in a context of mistrust. The road to a lasting ceasefire is strewn with pitfalls, but it requires a desire for listening and compromise. Rather than a simple cessation of hostilities, the search for a real peace agreement could avoid future suffering and promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict.