Why Ceasefire in Ukraine May Not Mean Peace

By taking Ukraine's NATO membership off the table, the US is trying to assuage one of Russia's main concerns. But there's much more at stake now

- LT GEN SYED ATA HASNAIN (RETD)

Fundamental changes in a superpower's outlook and its altered perception about any major geopolitical issue can have a profound effect in international relations where conflict resolution or initiation is involved. We are in a time when the world is eagerly looking towards an evolving order that would enable a winding down of confrontation and return of growth. The Trump administration's geopolitical outlook signals such a fundamental change.

There is no doubt that the first of those conflicts whose winding down will trigger more positives for the world is the Ukraine war, now into its third year. There are situations competing for attention, such as the Gaza war and tensions in the Indo-Pacific, besides geo-economic issues. However, the US President has correctly focused on Ukraine first. West Asian affairs involving Gaza, Iran, Syria and Israel are parts of a larger legacy issue. The breakout of more violence in the region will no doubt have a telling effect.

Yet, Ukraine's war involves a former superpower—now a big power—in a region where nuclear weapons are ranged and 32 other countries are in an alliance.

At a recent meeting with NATO defence secretaries, the new US defence secretary Pete Hegseth stated that Ukraine cannot join NATO; this is in line with the Russian demand too. It reflects the current US administration's stance on a fundamental issue that is a complete reversal from the previous administration's stance. However, this position does not, in itself, resolve the conflict, as other critical issues such as territorial disputes and security guarantees remain unresolved.

But this single belief about the inevitability of Ukraine's membership in NATO is what led to the war in the first place. Now without this issue, what constitutes obstacles to peace needs examination.