Following the announcement of a partial ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, experts from the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs (Princeton SPIA) offer their insights on what this means and what comes next. With backgrounds in international affairs, political conflict, and economic history, these scholars help make sense of the ceasefire’s impact, challenges, and what it could mean for global stability.

Harold James, Claude and Lore Kelly Professor in European Studies. Professor of History and International Affairs. Director, Program in Contemporary European Politics and Society

“Discussion of the ceasefire is driven by many illusions, and the made for TV aspect of recent US “'diplomacy”' has damaged both the peace process and the credibility of the United States. The Russian insistence on removing the “'fundamental causes”’ of the conflict makes a solution impossible, since Russia presents the fundamental cause in Ukraine’s existence as an independent and democratic state. So all that can be expected in reality is a freezing, but that solution requires credible security guarantees. The new suggestion of a U.S. stake in energy production may just offer a path to a guarantee, but there will also need to be a security presence from outsiders as guarantors.”

Grigore Pop-Eleches, Professor of Politics and International Affairs

“There are no real reasons to believe that Putin is genuinely interested in peace negotiations (and Russia appears to have broken the ceasefire already). Furthermore, if the conditions are primarily based on a deal between Trump and Putin about dividing Ukrainian land and resources and lack meaningful input from Ukraine (and Europe), then they are problematic both ethically and practically, and cannot be the basis for lasting peace.”

Jacob N. Shapiro, Professor of Politics and International Affairs

“The proposed partial ceasefire agreement is a step in the right direction, but we should not be too optimistic. Most ceasefires in interstate wars do not lead to lasting peace. To get there typically requires that uncertainty on both sides about how the fight will end has been resolved and that the politics on both sides line up for settlement. In this case I worry first that Russian leaders still think they can win on the battlefield if they can stop U.S. support, and second that the politics for Putin of settling without big battlefield gains are not favorable because he will disappoint the right wing of Russian politics.”