Unpacking Macron's Proposal of a Month-Long Truce in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine has been ongoing for more than three years, and any initiative to end the fighting has drawn considerable interest and debate. Recently, the situation has become more complex due to the suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine and rising tensions between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In this context, French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal has gained particular significance.

The Essence of Macron’s Proposal

President Macron has proposed a one-month truce, calling for a cessation of hostilities in the air, at sea, and against energy infrastructure. He acknowledged that a full ceasefire would be difficult to monitor due to the length of the front lines, making a limited truce a more realistic step. Macron emphasized: “We want peace. But we don't want it at any price or without guarantees.”

Reaction of International Partners

Official Kyiv responded to Macron's initiative with caution. President Volodymyr Zelensky emphasized the importance of clear security guarantees from allies, stressing that previous agreements with Russia had often been violated. He stressed: “We want peace, but not at any cost.”

Ukrainian military experts have expressed concern that a temporary ceasefire could allow Russia to regroup its forces and strengthen its defensive positions, making it more difficult for Ukraine’s Armed Forces to continue their operations—especially given the ongoing suspension of U.S. aid.

The response from European countries was divided. Germany supported the initiative, seeing it as an opportunity to ease hostilities. Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasized the need to seek pathways to peace, backing the French proposal.

Italy, however, considers Macron’s initiative premature. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stated: “I believe everything should be done jointly—by Europe and the United States... So it is too early to say what to do and how to do it.”

The United Kingdom has not fully endorsed the proposed ceasefire but remains engaged in discussions with France and other European allies on possible peace mechanisms. British officials stated that various ceasefire options are being considered in coordination with the United States and European partners, but a month-long truce has yet to be agreed upon. British Secretary of State for the Armed Forces Luke Pollard expressed concern that a short-term ceasefire could allow Russia to regroup and prolong its aggression.

Cautious Approach from the Trump Administration

The Trump administration also received Macron’s proposal with skepticism. Trump has shown little interest in European-led truce initiatives, as he prefers direct negotiations with Moscow, often bypassing other Western allies. He has also publicly criticized Zelenskyy for suggesting that the war’s end remains distant, further straining their relationship.

Additionally, Trump’s suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine has drawn sharp criticism from the international community. U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who is quite active in her pro-Ukraine activities, stated that the decision “plays into Putin’s hands and harms Ukraine.”

The Kremlin has not outright rejected Macron’s proposal but attached conditions that Kyiv finds unacceptable—including recognition of ‘new territorial realities.’ Moscow sees the proposed truce as an opportunity to consolidate occupied territories and buy time for further mobilization.

Historical Context and the Experience of Temporary Ceasefires

Previous attempts at ceasefires, such as the 2014–2015 Minsk Agreements or the 2022 grain deal, failed largely due to the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms.

The Minsk Agreements aimed to establish a ceasefire and withdraw heavy weapons, but Russia’s repeated violations prevented any lasting de-escalation. Additionally, the agreements included political clauses that granted autonomy to the occupied territories, which became a major point of contention for Ukraine.

Similarly, the grain deal brokered by Turkey and the United Nations in 2022—which allowed Ukrainian grain exports via the Black Sea—was repeatedly disrupted by Russian actions, including blockades and the detention of ships. This exposed the fragility of international security guarantees during armed conflict.

Lessons from Other Conflicts

Temporary ceasefires in other conflicts have also produced mixed results. In the Syrian civil war, for instance, ceasefires were frequently exploited by the Assad regime to regroup before launching new offensives. A similar pattern emerged in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where both sides repeatedly violated ceasefires and used the pauses to rearm and reposition their forces.

The Korean War (1950–1953), by contrast, presents a notable exception. An armistice was reached only after prolonged negotiations and significant shifts in the military balance of power. Unlike other conflicts, this truce has remained in place to this day, though it never resulted in a formal peace agreement.

The Risks of Temporary Ceasefires

These historical cases illustrate that temporary truces without robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms often lead to renewed escalation. In many instances, one party has used the pause to gain a strategic advantage.

In the case of Ukraine, Russia has a consistent track record of violating agreements, using ceasefires as opportunities to fortify its positions and prepare for further aggression. This pattern underscores the risks of any short-term truce that lacks credible enforcement mechanisms or long-term security guarantees.

Possible Consequences of the Month-long Truce

The Ukrainian military fears that the temporary ceasefire will allow Russia to regroup its troops, deploy additional resources, and strengthen its defense lines. This could significantly complicate further operations of the Armed Forces. For Kyiv, agreeing to a truce without security guarantees would mean weakening its position in the international arena. At the same time, refusing to agree to it could result in pressure from Western partners. 

Indeed, President Zelenskyy's Ukrainian foreign policy team reiterated many times that a ceasefire could help reduce civilian casualties and organize evacuations from the frontline regions. However, it could be a short-term improvement without guarantees that the ceasefire will be upheld. This is the main principle Ukraine tries to argue for. 

In the aftermath, it's hard to know if Macron's initiative will likely be implemented in its current form. However, it demonstrates France's desire to strengthen its role in the international arena and not miss an opportunity to become a leading European voice in US-Ukraine-Russia potential negotiations.

An alternative scenario could be that the West intensifies its diplomatic efforts to force Russia to make more substantial concessions or increase military assistance to Ukraine to resolve the conflict by force. In any case, the future of the conflict will depend on the balance of power on the battlefield, the political will of the key players, and the success of Trump's peace initiative.

Ihor Petrenko, Expert at Kyiv-based United Ukraine Think Tank