Would the one -month Ukraine truce work?

A partial truce for a month between Russia and Ukraine could be the key to unlocking a lasting peace between the two parties?

President Emmanuel Macron, of France, believes and floated the idea during the summit of Sunday European leaders in London.

In an interview with Le Figaro, he proposed a four -week truce “in the air, in the sea and the energy infrastructure”. Would not cover the land struggle along the first east line.

“In case of cessation of fire, it would be very difficult to verify (a truce) along the front,” Macron told the newspaper.

In a separate interview, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said: “A truce infrastructure in the air, sea and energy would determine if Russian President, Vladimir Putin, acts in good faith when he is committed to a truce. And that’s when the Real Pau negotiations could begin.”

So far it looks like more than a completely worked plan and the difficult details are scarce. But the essence of the hypothesis seems to divide the process of finishing the fighting.

A short -term initial truce, something less permanent than a formal fire, would provide a moment to test Russia’s willingness to negotiate a peace. It could also give President Trump an early political victory.

Would not involve any assignment of the territory. And could create political space to allow serious conversations to start on lasting peace.

Under the French proposal, a European “insurance force” would deploy to Ukraine to deter future Russian aggression only after any termination of lasting fire had been agreed.

Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Lord Mandelson, seemed to give the idea of ​​Sunday in an interview with ABC News when he said, “Ukraine should be first to commit to a cessation of fire and challenge the Russians to follow.”

But on Monday, officials and ministers of the United Kingdom government were fantastic with the idea of ​​a French truce and emphasized that it was not yet an agreed proposal. The Minister of the Armed Forces, Luke Pollard, told the BBC’s Today Program: “Some options that are currently being discussed. None of them have been agreed in this phase.”

The spokesman for the Prime Minister said, “There are clearly several options on the table. I simply do not comment on the options.”

The Deputy First Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, was more forceful, saying that the idea was “premature”, according to the Italian news agency ASSA.

“I think everything must be done together, Europe and the United States, sitting at a table with Ukraine and Russia to achieve a peace and especially a long peace,” said Tajani. “Therefore, it is still premature to see what to do, how to do it.”

There is clearly difficulty with the idea. How could a violation of an anonymous drone attack on a Ukrainian power plant? Why would Ukraine want to give Russian forces a free month to regroup and rearmar?

But for all this, Western diplomats said that the idea of ​​a partial truce was not entirely “thought” of President Macron, a man known for floating ideas on international peaks.

They said that it could be part of the European fire plans that are working before putting in the North -Americans.

It is clear that new thought may be needed to try to unlock the current impasse with the United States and Ukraine still disagree and Europeans struggling to find ways to repair diplomatic breach.

Everything, of course, depends on what Ukraine and Russia think. On Sunday night, Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, was asked if he was aware of the French truce plan and simply said, “I am aware of everything.”

So far there is no evidence that the Russians were willing to accept a partial truce. As Zelensky said, “Anyone who wants to negotiate does not deliberately hit the people with ballistic missiles.”