Planning for Peace: The Complexities of a Ukraine Cease-Fire

Expert Discussions and the Geneva Initiative

In the spring of 2022, a group of military and civilian experts gathered discreetly in Geneva to discuss a sensitive topic: how to implement a future cease-fire in Ukraine. These discussions, which remained confidential for over a year, were driven by the urgent need to address the practical challenges of monitoring and enforcing such an agreement. Last week, the group made their work public by releasing a 31-page document that outlines a detailed plan for a cease-fire along Ukraine’s more than 700-mile front line. The paper, published by the Geneva Center for Security Policy, a Swiss government-financed think tank, provides one of the most comprehensive templates for a Ukraine cease-fire to date. The document was also shared through a private channel: a recurring meeting in Geneva between American, Russian, and Ukrainian foreign-policy experts close to their respective governments. This initiative reflects the growing recognition that planning for a cease-fire has transitioned from a controversial and theoretical exercise to an urgent and practical issue.

The Trump Factor and the Rush for a Settlement

The shift in focus toward cease-fire planning has been significantly influenced by former President Donald Trump, who has expressed a desire for a quick settlement to the conflict. In recent weeks, Trump has taken steps to pressure Ukraine into negotiations, including suspending military aid and intelligence sharing. He has also repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is eager to strike a deal. While Trump’s actions have drawn criticism, they have also brought attention to the critical question of what a post-conflict landscape in Ukraine might look like. Historically, discussions about a cease-fire were considered taboo, with both Kyiv and Western leaders focusing on military victories rather than the complexities of a potential compromise. However, the possibility of a negotiated end to the war is now being taken more seriously, even as skepticism about its feasibility persists.

A Blueprint for Monitoring and Enforcement

The Geneva Center’s document proposes a detailed framework for monitoring and enforcing a cease-fire in Ukraine. It suggests establishing a buffer zone at least six miles wide to separate Ukrainian and Russian forces, with 5,000 civilians and police officers patrolling the area. The plan also calls for approximately 10,000 foreign troops to provide security for the monitors. These monitors would be responsible for verifying compliance with the cease-fire, ensuring the withdrawal of heavy weaponry, and reporting violations. The mission would operate under a mandate from the United Nations or another international body. The plan also emphasizes the need for a joint commission comprised of Russian and Ukrainian military officials to address issues such as detainee releases, mine clearance, and the establishment of civilian corridors through the buffer zone. The proposed buffer zone and monitoring system aim to prevent misunderstandings and minor incidents from escalating into renewed fighting.

Lessons from Past Cease-Fires and the Challenges Ahead

The Geneva Center’s proposal draws on lessons from past cease-fire attempts, particularly the 2015 Minsk Agreement, which was plagued by inadequate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. Thomas Greminger, the center’s director, who previously oversaw cease-fire monitoring in Ukraine from 2017 to 2020, emphasized the need for a more robust and durable agreement this time around. The document acknowledges the immense challenges of implementing a cease-fire in Ukraine, including the vast and contested front line—some five times longer than the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea. The sophistication and range of weaponry available to both sides further complicate the situation. Experts warn that accurate monitoring will be critical to the success of any future armistice, as it would deter violations and reduce the risk of unintended escalations.

Behind-the-Scenes Diplomacy and the Role of International Cooperation

In addition to the technical aspects of cease-fire implementation, the Geneva Center’s efforts highlight the importance of back-channel diplomacy in addressing the conflict. Since the invasion began in 2022, confidential discussions have been held between foreign-policy experts from Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and Europe. These talks, facilitated by Greminger, have focused on establishing communication channels and exploring scenarios for a potential settlement. While the impact of these discussions on the broader negotiations remains unclear, they demonstrate the ongoing efforts to engage with Russia privately, even as the West and Ukraine seek to isolate Moscow on the international stage. Previous back-channel negotiations have yielded some successes, including prisoner-of-war exchanges and the Black Sea grain deal, though the latter collapsed in 2023 when Russia withdrew its support.

Skepticism and the Uncertain Path Forward

Despite the detailed plans and ongoing diplomacy, skepticism about the prospects for a cease-fire remains widespread. Many analysts question whether Putin is genuinely willing to agree to a deal that respects Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. Russian officials consistently denied plans to invade Ukraine until the war began, and there is little confidence that Moscow would abide by the terms of any agreement. Janis Kluge, a Russia expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, warns against the “illusion” of an imminent cease-fire, arguing that it is unrealistic to expect Russia to accept a settlement that leaves Ukraine independent and sovereign. Samuel Charap, a Russia analyst at the RAND Corporation, agrees that implementing a cease-fire in Ukraine will be an unprecedented and difficult problem, given the scale and complexity of the conflict. While the Geneva Center’s proposals offer a valuable roadmap for addressing the technical challenges, the political will to achieve a lasting peace remains in doubt.