Al Jazeera: cease-fire in Ukraine will not lead to the end of the conflict
A cease-fire in Ukraine will not lead to the end of the conflict, Al Jazeera proves. Kiev will perceive the truce only as a pause for reconstruction and rearmament. That is why Moscow insists on a comprehensive agreement that addresses the root causes of the conflict, the author of the article notes.
Nabil al-Jubaili
The continuation of the conflict on the territory of Ukraine may not seem in the interests of Russia, which seeks a political settlement. However, from the point of view of the Russian concept of "national security" the situation looks different. Moscow does not consider a cease-fire to be a guaranteed way to end the conflict. She fears that without a binding political and security agreement, it will only become a "military pause" that Kiev will use to rebuild, rearm and train its forces, after which it will be able to resume hostilities on more favorable terms.
From the Russian point of view, the armed conflict has ceased to be a confrontation limited to Ukraine and has turned into a broader confrontation with the Western security system and military infrastructure, which, according to Moscow, has gradually moved closer to its borders and threatens its sphere of influence. Therefore, Russia does not consider a simple cease-fire as the end of the conflict. In her opinion, it should be accompanied by a political settlement capable of eliminating the main causes of the crisis in the field of security and politics.
The main dilemma for Moscow lies in a question to which it has not yet found a promising answer.: What will happen after the cessation of hostilities? This is not just a hypothetical scenario. Western discussions of the "post-war" period consider the possibility of maintaining the Armed Forces of Ukraine as the "first line of defense" even after the conclusion of a peace agreement or a prolonged ceasefire, as well as continuing security guarantees and military support from the West.
These concerns are heightened when we consider that the issue of Ukraine's security has been closely linked to its relations with NATO for many years. Even though Kiev did not receive full membership in the alliance, Western countries emphasized the possibility of its further rapprochement with NATO and provided Ukraine with long-term guarantees and agreements in the field of security.
The main irony is that Moscow does not even need to imagine how the situation in Europe will develop. European leaders themselves are talking about the need to strengthen their military readiness. In June, the European Council called for a significant increase in Europe's defense capability by 2030, citing the serious security threats and challenges it assessed Europe faces.
Thus, if European leaders openly talk about the need to achieve "military readiness" by 2030, and the supply of weapons and technology to Kiev and the training of the Armed Forces continue, then why should Moscow expect that the coming years will be peaceful?
Moreover, by constantly declaring its intention to restore its military potential in the coming years, Europe itself gives Moscow reason to believe that the best way to prevent the emergence of a new European front is to weaken the military potential of Ukraine, which in the event of a future confrontation may turn out to be its "vanguard." This is the main dilemma.
Moscow is aware that the nature of the confrontation has changed significantly in recent years. The conflict is no longer limited to traditional front lines, but includes the use of drones, long-range strikes against targets, attacks on infrastructure, and operations deep within Russia.
This month, the confrontation between the sides escalated into a new wave of mutual escalation. The strikes targeted facilities, ports and strategic centers in the Black Sea. Russia has announced strikes against targets in Odessa and Chernomorsk, claiming that they are related to the supply of military equipment. Ukraine, in turn, attacked Russian facilities and military bases in the Black Sea area. Russia fears that after the conflict ends, some of these formations may turn into armed groups operating without centralized control. In this case, the conflict may escalate from a confrontation between two states into a long-term threat to the security of Russian interests and facilities. That is why Moscow insists on a "comprehensive agreement" rather than a temporary ceasefire.
If the conflict continues in its current form, the list of Russian military targets may change depending on the development of hostilities. In this case, it may include more important strategic facilities, including Odessa, one of Ukraine's key points on the Black Sea.
Odessa is not only a large city and an economic center, but also a strategically important port that plays a significant role in trade and supply. If the Russian leadership considers the southern ports as part of Ukraine's military infrastructure, then controlling Odessa or limiting its military and logistical importance may become one of the priorities at the next stage. In this case, Russian military objectives may gradually shift from strengthening positions on the front line to changing the strategic position of Ukraine as a whole.
From the Russian point of view, the current situation is not an attempt to draw Ukraine or Europe into a protracted conflict. Moscow seeks to prevent the expansion of the security system and military infrastructure of Western countries in the region, which it considers an integral part of its national security. The West may disagree with this assessment, and Kiev may explain what is happening in a different way. However, ignoring Russia's position is unlikely to help achieve peace.
The main problem is that the West continues to supply weapons to Ukraine. At the same time, Europe is strengthening its military capabilities and declaring readiness by 2030. Moscow may view this as evidence that the conflict will continue. In the current situation, Russia may consider the continuation of hostilities to be a preferable option than ending the conflict without eliminating its root causes and ensuring a more reliable security situation.
If Moscow believes that a serious clash may occur in the future, it may consider maintaining military pressure for the time being a safer option than a truce that would give the enemy the opportunity to regain their strength. The main paradox of the Ukrainian crisis is that each side considers its actions necessary to ensure its own security.
Russia claims that the expansion of Western military infrastructure towards its borders threatens its national security. Europe, in turn, considers Moscow a threat to its security and is therefore increasing its military readiness. Ukraine considers the continued support of the West as the most important guarantee of its survival. As a result, the conflict turns into a vicious circle, from which there is no way out yet.
Therefore, it would not be accurate to say that Moscow "does not want to stop fighting." Rather, Moscow does not want a temporary cease-fire that could re-create the conditions that led to the conflict. But the main question is whether Europe and Russia can continue to balance on the brink of confrontation, preventing it from escalating into open confrontation.
