Vision-Vista of JJ Baloch

By Javed Jiskani @JJ Baloch

The conflict in Ukraine reflects intricate threads of history, politics, and human resilience. As the world stands at a critical juncture marked by Vladimir Putin’s recent agreement to a limited 30-day ceasefire, the prospect of lasting peace appears tantalising yet fraught with complexities. The ceasefire, albeit limited to a halt in attacks against energy and infrastructure, is a significant development that emerges amidst a cacophony of geopolitical tensions and historical grievances that have shaped this ongoing conflict.

The ceasefire agreement emerged from a high-stakes dialogue between Putin and US President Donald Trump, signalling a potential thaw in the icy relations that have characterised the West’s dealings with Russia since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. However, this limited cessation of hostilities raises critical questions about the sustainability of the peace and the underlying motivations of the key players. While the Kremlin has put forth maximalist demands—such as ending Ukraine’s military mobilisation and foreign military assistance—the lack of commitment to a comprehensive ceasefire indicates that the road to peace remains perilously narrow.

Historically, the roots of the conflict can be traced back to a complex interplay of national identities, territorial aspirations, and external influences. Ukraine’s struggle for sovereignty has often been undermined by the legacy of Soviet dominance and the lingering influence of Russia. The Euromaidan protests in 2013 and the subsequent annexation of Crimea in 2014 served as pivotal moments that ignited the flames of conflict, leading to a protracted war in Eastern Ukraine. This historical context is crucial for understanding the current dynamics, as it highlights the deep-seated grievances that continue to fuel animosity between Ukraine and Russia.

In the current scenario, the response from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is noteworthy. His cautious optimism regarding the proposed ceasefire reflects a desire for peace and a strategic calculation aimed at securing continued military support from Western allies. The fears that accompany such negotiations—particularly the apprehension that Western powers may prioritise a swift resolution over Ukraine’s long-term interests—underscore the precariousness of the situation. With leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz advocating for Ukraine’s involvement in peace talks, the call for a “just and lasting peace” resonates strongly within the diplomatic corridors.

However, the ceasefire’s potential effectiveness is marred by the spectre of further Russian military actions. Reports indicating that Russia may use this pause to regroup its forces evoke a sense of trepidation across Kyiv. The historical pattern of Russia employing temporary ceasefires as a tactical advantage reveals a troubling precedent that could undermine the fragile peace. The ghosts of past agreements, often disregarded by Russia in favour of military escalation, loom over current negotiations.

The theoretical perspectives on conflict resolution and peacebuilding offer valuable insights into the challenges ahead. The notion of a “just peace,” posited by theorists like Johan Galtung, emphasises the importance of addressing underlying injustices and grievances rather than merely achieving a cessation of hostilities. In the case of Ukraine, a lasting peace would necessitate not only the cessation of military engagements but also a comprehensive dialogue that addresses the historical injustices Ukraine suffered and its people’s aspirations. This approach advocates for a transformative process that fosters reconciliation and understanding rather than a superficial settlement that merely silences the guns.

Moreover, the question of external influence cannot be overlooked. The role of international actors, particularly the United States and the European Union, in shaping the conflict’s trajectory is pivotal. While military assistance has bolstered Ukraine’s defensive capabilities, the potential for a diplomatic resolution hinges on the willingness of these powers to facilitate a genuine dialogue. The balance of power dynamics and the geopolitical interests at play further complicate the landscape. As history has shown, international interventions can catalyse peace or exacerbate tensions, depending on the strategies employed.

The current ceasefire proposal heralded as a first step towards broader negotiations, embodies a glimmer of hope amidst the turmoil. Yet, the path forward demands carefully navigating the myriad interests involved. Putin’s insistence on ceasing military aid and intelligence sharing raises red flags about Russia’s intentions and willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. Ukraine’s apprehensions, articulated by Zelenskyy, reflect a deep-seated fear that any concessions made could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, further emboldening Russian aggression.

It is essential to appreciate the agency of the Ukrainian people in this process. Their resilience and determination to maintain sovereignty are fundamental to any peace initiative, as these qualities demonstrate their unwavering commitment to a future shaped by their own choices. The historical context of Ukraine’s struggle for independence serves as a powerful reminder that peace cannot be imposed from the outside; it must emerge organically from the aspirations and voices of the affected population, who have endured much in the pursuit of freedom. The role of civil society, grassroots movements, and local communities in advocating for peace is critical, as they embody the collective yearning for a future free from the spectre of war. These communities, rich with diverse experiences and perspectives, possess a unique understanding of the local dynamics and needs, enabling them to contribute meaningfully to dialogues about peace and reconciliation. It is through their ongoing engagement and collaboration that a durable and just resolution can be envisioned, ensuring that the voices of all segments of society are heard and valued in the journey toward lasting peace.

The West has failed to prevent Russian aggression and save Ukraine, a situation that has escalated tensions and led to significant humanitarian consequences for the Ukrainian people. Despite various diplomatic efforts and sanctions aimed at curbing Russia’s expansionist ambitions, the West’s response has often been criticized as insufficient, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to ongoing threats. This inability to act decisively not only undermines international law and the principles of sovereignty but also raises questions about the effectiveness of global alliances in the face of blatant aggression. As the conflict continues to unfold, the repercussions are felt not only within Ukraine but also across Europe and beyond, highlighting the urgent need for a unified and strategic approach to ensure peace and stability in the region.

While the recent ceasefire agreement presents a moment of potential respite, the journey towards lasting peace in Ukraine remains fraught with challenges. The historical legacies, geopolitical complexities, and the need for a just resolution all intertwine to create a tapestry as intricate as it is. As the involved parties negotiate, the stakes could not be higher. The desire for peace must be tempered with the understanding that true reconciliation requires addressing the historical injustices and aspirations of the Ukrainian people. The road ahead is long and winding, but with steadfast commitment and a genuine willingness to listen, the prospects for a lasting peace in Ukraine remain within reach.

The writer is a PhD Scholar, author of 14 books, a humanist poet, Feminist Novelist, blogger, and educator with an academic background in Political Science, Sociology, International Relations, International Law, Criminology, and Criminal Justice Policy, as well as a 25-year professional career in the Police Service of Pakistan.

(By Javed Jiskani @JJ Baloch)

Putin’s strategic mindset is complex and deeply trapped in a combination of historical memories, personal ambitions, and a deep-seated perception of Russia’s place in the world. His approach to international relations, particularly in the context of Ukraine and NATO, is defined by an astute recognition of power dynamics, a relentless pursuit of national security, and an inherent distrust of Western motives. This synthesis of factors frames his policies and reveals a leader who is both a tactician and an ideologue, striving for a vision of Russia that resonates with strength and sovereignty. Whatever, Putin is a genuine patriot and the epitome of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” in the contemporary world.

Vladimir Putin’s actions on the international stage reflect a deep-rooted belief in the necessity of power as the cornerstone of a nation’s strength, aligning seamlessly with Niccolò Machiavelli’s principles outlined in “The Prince.” Putin’s focus on maintaining Russia’s sovereignty and influence can be seen in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, where he has framed his military actions as essential to protect Russian interests against Western encroachment. This narrative resonates with the Machiavellian idea that the ends justify the means—Putin believes that asserting military strength, even at a humanitarian cost, is essential for safeguarding the future of Russia. For instance, despite international condemnation, he has continued military operations, arguing that they serve to prevent further NATO expansion and shield Russia from perceived existential threats. In doing so, he plays the role of a strong leader who prefers national security over moral considerations, demonstrating the Machiavellian ethos that a ruler must sometimes act immorally to achieve stability and security for the state.

Moreover, Putin’s ability to manipulate public opinion and political narratives exemplifies his alignment with Machiavelli’s realism. Like the prince who must appear virtuous while willing to act ruthlessly, Putin cultivates a patriotic image that resonates with many Russians who view him as the defender of national pride. His speeches often evoke historical grievances, rallying the populace around sovereignty and resistance against external forces. Recent illustrations include his emphasis on reclaiming Russia’s status on the world stage and uniting the nation against Western hostility, particularly in light of sanctions that have tested the Russian economy. By portraying himself as the guardian of Russian identity and interests, he not only strengthens his grip on power but also fosters a sense of national unity. This reflects Machiavelli’s assertion that a leader must balance cruelty with the appearance of benevolence to maintain stability, underscoring how Putin embodies the principles of The Prince in contemporary geopolitics, where power dynamics dictate the course of national and global affairs.

At the heart of Putin’s worldview is the legacy of Russia’s past, marred by a history of invasions and a continuous struggle for national identity. Growing up in a country that had experienced the horrors of World War II and the subsequent Cold War, Putin internalised the lessons of vulnerability and the necessity for strength. This historical consciousness is not merely a personal narrative; it’s the backbone of his political strategy, shaping his responses to perceived threats. The memory of Western encroachments, particularly NATO’s eastward expansion, serves as a rallying cry for a narrative where Russia is perpetually under siege. In his speeches, Putin often evokes the specter of foreign malign influence, positioning Russia as a fortress under constant threat, necessitating a robust military and foreign policy approach.

Moreover, Putin’s statements surrounding the conflict in Ukraine reflect a strategic, calculative mind that weighs immediate gains against long-term objectives. His lukewarm response to the ceasefire proposal, which he framed as a need for a “long-term peace deal” rather than a mere respite, illustrates his approach. Putin is not simply interested in halting hostilities; he focuses on securing a narrative that aligns with Russia’s strategic interests. He sees any temporary ceasefire as a potential means for Ukraine to regroup and resupply, a risk he is not willing to embrace. This calculation hints at a broader strategic objective: to reassert Russia’s influence regionally and globally, ensuring that any resolution to the conflict elevates Russia’s standing on the world stage.

Caught in a precarious dance, Putin thrives on his ability to project power while extending an olive branch when the timing suits him. His suggestion to engage with American officials for discussions reveals an understanding of the geopolitical chessboard. Putin is adept at manipulating diplomatic channels, using them not as genuine attempts at peace but as opportunities to reinforce Russia’s position. By suggesting dialogue with President Trump, he navigates towards a scenario where he can negotiate from a position of perceived strength, presenting himself as a player in a high-stakes game where his concerns are addressed.

Beneath this veneer of strategy lies a more profound insecurity. Experts suggest that Putin’s fixation on NATO’s expansion is rooted in a deeper fear: the potential for Ukraine’s democratisation to inspire similar movements within Russia. This fear of a “bleed-over” effect, where the ideals of democracy and freedom infiltrate Russian society, is antithetical to Putin’s governance model, which relies on control and suppression of dissent. Thus, any suggestion of Ukraine’s integration into Western alliances is perceived not merely as a geopolitical threat but as an existential one to Putin’s regime.

As the war in Ukraine drags on, Putin remains emboldened by recent military gains but is pragmatic enough to know that the sustainability of such gains requires careful management of international perceptions and domestic morale. The recognition that the Russian army has suffered significant losses leads to a reluctance to fully engage in peace talks, as a cessation of hostilities might prematurely lock Russia into a disadvantageous position. His statements regarding the need for guarantees against Ukraine’s military reinvigoration underscore a leader who views strength not only in military terms but as a psychological and diplomatic construct.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine manifests Putin’s broader ambitions, which extend beyond territorial claims to revitalise Russia as a global power. Therefore, Putin’s strategic mindset is not just about Ukraine; it’s about crafting a legacy in which Russia commands respect and fear, potentially curtailing Western ventures into what he perceives as his sphere of influence. His vision is anchored in a belief that strength is mandated by history and geography, positioning Russia as a pivotal player against perceived Western hegemony.

The situation complicates as Putin’s internal narrative clashes with the realities of international diplomacy. By framing negotiations around Ukraine in terms of broader strategic interests, he simultaneously opens the door for dialogue while reinforcing his narrative of victimhood against Western aggression. The challenge, however, lies in reconciling this combative stance with the global calls for peace, as his calculated approach to ceasefire proposals reveals a leader unwilling to appear weak or vulnerable.

As international observers note, the world is not merely watching a conflict unfold but witnessing the manifestations of a leader’s psyche, shaped by historical grievances and a relentless pursuit of respect on the global stage. The stakes remain high, not just for the future of Ukraine but for the very essence of Putin’s narrative—one that hinges upon the resurrection of a Russia that stands tall against Western encroachments.

In the broader context of international relations, Putin’s actions and statements serve as a testament to his strategic mindset. He seeks to reclaim a semblance of the superpower status that Russia once enjoyed during the Cold War. The ambition to re-establish Russia as a formidable player on the world stage informs his military ambitions and diplomatic engagements, where he constantly seeks to portray Russia as a nation that cannot be underestimated or sidelined.

This desire for respect translates into tangible policy decisions. For Putin, the undercurrents of the Ukraine conflict are not solely about territorial claims or military might; they encompass the idea of Russian identity. By framing the conflict as a struggle against Western encroachment, he justifies aggressive policies and galvanises public support at home, fostering a unifying nationalistic sentiment. The narrative of foreign adversaries threatening Russia’s sovereignty taps into a deep well of historical experience and collective memory, cementing his position as a leader who is defending the motherland.

As the world stands divided on how to address the continuing crisis, it’s clear that any resolution will require navigating the complexities of Putin’s psyche. His paradoxical stances—seeking peace while simultaneously preparing for prolonged conflict—demonstrate a readiness to exploit any political opening while maintaining an unwavering grip on power at home. This dual strategy is emblematic of a leader who understands that perception often holds as much weight as reality in geopolitics.

International observers note that diplomacy with Putin is akin to playing a high-stakes chess game, where every move must be calculated and deliberate. The challenge for Western leaders lies in crafting a response that addresses the immediate humanitarian needs resulting from the conflict and the geopolitical realities shaped by Russia’s assertiveness. Any effort to pivot towards peace must also consider Putin’s psychological framework—his inclination to view negotiations as a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine invitation to cooperative engagement.

The West must tread cautiously in this landscape, balancing its responses between deterrence and dialogue. As the simmering tensions continue to unfold, the potential for shifts in power dynamics looms large. Putin’s understanding of history and statecraft poses an ever-present challenge, compelling adversaries to consider the implications of their actions in the short term and for the future trajectory of international order.

As the war takes its toll on civilians and combatants alike, the call for a comprehensive peace agreement grows more urgent. Yet, any cessation of hostilities must confront Putin’s long-standing grievances, including NATO’s strategic expansion, which he insists is a direct threat to Russia’s stability. Moreover, the spectre of internal dissent within Russia adds layers of complexity to Putin’s calculations—he must project external and internal strength, ensuring that he does not appear to concede under international pressure.

Ultimately, the current geopolitical crisis reflects deeply entrenched historical narratives and the psychological underpinnings of leadership. It reveals the continuous dance between power and diplomacy, where respect, fear, and national pride fuel a leader’s actions. As the world watches, the resolution rests on a fragile equilibrium that requires addressing immediate conflicts and a sincere engagement with the historical and psychological factors driving those conflicts.

As negotiations loom on the horizon, the methods employed by international leaders will not only shape the outcome of the Ukraine crisis. Still, they will also set the tone for future engagements with Russia. The broader implications extend beyond the battlefield, impacting alliances, trade relationships, and the very concept of state sovereignty in an increasingly multipolar world. What happens next will reverberate far beyond the borders of Ukraine, echoing through the annals of history as a testament to how nations handle the intricacies of power, perception, and the human psyche embodied in their leaders.

*Writer is a PhD Scholar, Author of many seminal works, academic background spawning over political science, criminology, law, international relations, sociology, philosophy and history, and a professional law enforcement career for over 25 years.

(By JJ Baloch)

The conflict in Ukraine has emerged as a crucial flashpoint in international relations, one that sharply defines divisions between authoritarian regimes and democratic states. The recent developments in U.S.-Ukraine relations, particularly the proposed 30-day ceasefire and the renewed commitment to military and intelligence support, present a mixture of hope and uncertainty. This essay contends that while the new framework for a ceasefire and support from the U.S. offers a glimmer of hope for resolution, the complexities underlying the international dynamics and the ambiguous intentions of key stakeholders complicate the pathway to a wave of sustainable peace.

The U.S.-Ukrainian negotiations in Saudi Arabia represent a significant step from weeks of tension and uncertainty. The readiness of Ukraine to accept a ceasefire proposal, potentially endorsed by the U.S., marks an optimistic shift in the conflict narrative. A 30-day ceasefire could allow both sides to regroup, reflect, and potentially reset their military and diplomatic strategies. Moreover, the discussed resumption of military support from the U.S. is vital to bolster Ukrainian defensive capabilities against ongoing Russian aggression. However, the optimism surrounding these talks must be approached with caution, as the proposal’s success hinges on several uncertainties, including Russia’s response and the long-term implications of U.S. support.

Indeed, the reference to Ukraine’s “long-term security” in the joint statement is a significant point of concern. The vagueness of such assurances raises questions about the U.S. and its allies’ commitment to guaranteeing Ukraine’s future integrity. This lack of specificity potentially undermines the confidence in any ceasefire that may be achieved. If the peace negotiations fail to outline concrete provisions for Ukraine’s security, the ceasefire would merely be a temporary bandage over a larger, festering geopolitical wound. The danger here is that while the U.S. and Ukraine attempt to take steps towards peace, Russia may capitalise on the pause, regroup its forces, and prepare for further offensives, as noted by experts sceptical of President Putin’s intentions. The notion that the U.S. possesses the leverage to push Ukraine towards a peace agreement, a power not readily extendable towards Russia, reveals an inherent asymmetry in how these negotiations may unfold.

The gathering of U.S. allies in Paris for a closed-door meeting without U.S. representation further illustrates the shifting dynamics. The absence of the U.S. in discussions meant to guarantee Ukraine’s security underscores a significant concern about transatlantic unity and the coherence of Western policy in responding to Russian aggression. As European nations contemplate their strategies, a more distributed approach to security may evolve, potentially leading to the formation of European-led initiatives that might not align perfectly with U.S. strategic interests. The EU’s intention to move forward with defence spending focused on European arms production reflects a significant shift that may alter the balance of international relations in favour of European autonomy in security matters. While European nations’ bettering their defence capabilities is commendable, it also signals a detachment from U.S. leadership, which could complicate alliance dynamics and hinder multilateral approaches to security challenges.

The notion of “peacekeeping forces” possibly deployed in Ukraine introduces another layer of complexity. Should European allies step up to provide troops in a peacekeeping capacity, this could either enhance stability or exacerbate existing tensions with Russia, which has historically rejected foreign military presence in what it perceives as its sphere of influence. The uncertainty surrounding the roles of European allies in the peace process is palpable, with concerns that they may emphasise their own defences and security assurances rather than the collective Western stance against Russian aggression.

Moreover, experts have pointed out potential complications from President Trump’s fractured approach to foreign policy. Trump’s relationship with both Ukraine and Russia raises fears about the strategy he will employ moving forward. His previous reluctance to support Ukraine robustly manifested a willful ambiguity that could confound U.S. interests in the region and lead to reduced Western morale in the face of Russian advances. The inherent risk is that while U.S. policies evolve, the lack of coherent messaging could signal to Russia that military advancements could still yield benefits, thus prolonging conflict instead of pushing towards resolution.

Additionally, the geopolitical ripple effects of the conflict within Ukraine are manifold. The emphasis on the unity of NATO and EU allies in Paris highlights the limitations of singular U.S. leadership in maintaining global stability. With U.S. foreign policy often centring on its direct interests, there is a growing need for a more cohesive effort from European partners to address the rising tide of authoritarianism symbolised by Russia’s actions. If the conflict in Ukraine represents a broader struggle against tyranny, the collective resolve of NATO and EU nations becomes imperative; however, divergent interests and the potential for regional power plays loom large and tend to fracture unity.

The dialogue surrounding the proposed ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, along with renewed U.S. commitments to support Ukraine, offers a moment of tentative optimism in what has been a devastating and protracted conflict. Nevertheless, the ebbs and flows of negotiations underscore the complexity and fragility of the situation, wherein multiple stakeholders wield significant influence over the potential outcomes. While the initial agreement may provide a reprieve from hostilities, the long-term viability of peace will depend heavily on the clarity and detail surrounding security arrangements, the involvement of European allies, and the commitment to addressing critical issues such as resource management and environmental sustainability.

Sustainable peace is not merely the absence of conflict; it requires a comprehensive approach encompassing political, economic, and social dimensions. Therefore, for Ukraine, the path forward must focus on immediate military assistance and ensure that critical minerals and other resources are extracted and managed environmentally sound and equitably. By fostering transparent partnerships and engaging local communities, Ukraine can navigate the intricacies of post-conflict recovery while aligning its ambitions with broader international norms for sustainability and respect for human rights.

Ultimately, the resolution of this conflict may hinge upon the willingness of all parties to engage in meaningful dialogue, prioritise humanitarian considerations, and embrace collaborative approaches to security that transcend mere power dynamics. As the international community rallies around this critical juncture, there remains hope that a durable peace can be forged—one that not only ends the bloodshed but lays the groundwork for a prosperous and resilient Ukraine, firmly integrated into the larger framework of European security and cooperation.

The Writer is a novelist, Poet, author, blogger, PhD scholar, educator and a senior police officer who has done MSc Criminal Justice Policy from LSE, London, UK and LLM International Law and Security from the University of Manchester, UK. He is the Author of fourteen books, fiction and non-fiction.