Does it mean accepting that a sovereign state loses approximately 20% of its territory following military aggression? Considering it normal that previous security agreements, signed by the same parties involved, can be overridden by the use of force?
It is true that a truce would offer Ukraine immediate relief. But how long would it last? And above all, what real guarantees could it rest on, if one of the actors has already demonstrated that it does not consider past commitments binding?
Western intelligence assessments indicate that Russian strategic objectives have not changed, contradicting the Trump presidency which currently appears interested only in resuming economic relations with Russia to focus on competition with China. Russia, for its part, which is dedicating 40% of total government spending to defense and security and has never had such a high number of troops, needs to emerge from economic isolation and rebalance its relationship of dependence on Beijing.
With such premises, who would guarantee the future security of Ukraine and other tension theaters, from Greenland to Taiwan?
Peace can only be called such if it is stable, credible and based on shared rules. If these conditions do not exist, are we sure it doesn't just mean preparing for the next conflict?