Would one-month Ukraine truce work?

Could the partial truce for a month between Russia and Ukraine be the key to launching a permanent peace between the two sides?

President Emmanuel Macron believes that France and put the idea during the Sunday summit for European leaders in London.

In an interview with the Le Figaro newspaper, a four -week truce suggested “in the air, at sea and on the energy infrastructure.” The ground fighting will not be covered along the confrontation line in the east.

“In the event of a ceasefire, it will be very difficult to check [a truce] “Along the front was respected,” Macron told the newspaper.

In a separate interview, French Foreign Minister Jean -Nou Barout said: “Such a truce on the air, sea and energy will allow us to determine whether Russian President Vladimir Putin is acting in good faith when he commits a truce. When real peace negotiations can begin.”

This looks so far more than one plan that has been fully made and the difficult details are rare. But it seems that the essence of the hypothesis is divided into the process of ending the fighting.

The primary truce in the short term – is always less than the official ceasefire – a moment to test Russia’s willingness to negotiate peace. It is also possible to give an early political victory to President Trump.

It will not involve any clearance of the lands. It can create the political space to allow serious conversations to start a permanent peace.

Under the French proposal, a European “guarantee force” will spread to Ukraine to deter Russian aggression in the future only after agreeing to any permanent ceasefire.

It seemed that the British ambassador to Washington, Lord Mandson, was giving credibility to the idea on Sunday in an interview with ABC News when he said: “Ukraine should be the first to commit to a ceasefire and the Russians challenge to follow up.”

But on Monday, the UK officials and ministers were great about the idea of ​​the French armistice and confirmed that it was not yet agreed. “A number of options that are being discussed at the present time. None of them were agreed at this stage,” the Minister of Armed Forces Luke Pollard told BBC today.

“It is clear that there are a number of options on the table. I am just not going to comment on the options.”

Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani was more severe, saying that the idea was “premature”, according to ANSA.

Tajani said: “I think everything should be done together, Europe and the United States, sitting at a table with Ukraine and Russia to reach a fair and especially peace,” Tajani said. “Therefore, it’s still too early to see what to do, and how to do this.”

It is clear that there are difficulties in this idea. How can one measure a violation by an attack without a drone on the Ukrainian power plant? Why does Ukraine want to give Russian forces a free month to reassemble our ranks and renounce them?

But on all of this, Western diplomats said that the idea of ​​partial armistice was not “blue thinking” by President Macron – a man known for floating ideas in international summits.

They said that it may be part of the European ceasefire plans that are being worked on before putting them on the Americans.

It is clear that some new thinking is needed to try to open the current impasse with the United States and Ukraine are still at odds and the Europeans are struggling to find ways to reform diplomatic breach.

Everything, of course, depends on what Ukraine and Russia think. On Sunday night, Ukrainian President Voludmir Zelinski was asked whether he was familiar with the French armistice plan and said simply: “I am aware of everything.”

There is no evidence that the Russians will be ready to agree to a partial truce. Zelensky said: “Anyone who wants to negotiate does not hit people with ballistic missiles.”