The front line as a new border: what Vance proposed to Ukraine and Russia
23 April 13:32
US Vice President J.D. Vance said that the United States has officially proposed to Ukraine and Russia to freeze hostilities along the current front line. This was reported by "Komersant Ukrainian" with reference to Bloomberg.
“The current lines, somewhere in the vicinity of them, is where I think you’re going to draw the new lines of demarcation in the conflict,” Vance told reporters in India on Wednesday, April 23.
He added that this would mean that both Ukraine and Russia would have to give up some of the territory that each side currently controls.
“There will have to be some territorial exchanges,” Vance said.
He added that while the border may not run exactly along the front lines as it does now, in order to stop the killing, both sides must “lay down their arms, freeze it all and get down to the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.”
This initiative is part of the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan and is aimed at ending the war, which has been the main source of instability in Europe for three years in a row. The US proposal sounds like a realistic, but extremely difficult compromise: a ceasefire without the return of the temporarily occupied territories.
According to Vance, Washington has presented a “very clear vision” of a future settlement and expects a response from both sides. It is a freezing of the conflict without a final peace treaty, a solution that has been discussed in diplomatic circles for months. The United States has made it clear that it does not intend to participate in mediation indefinitely if the parties do not show the will to compromise.
The essence of the American proposal is to recognize Russia’s de facto control over the occupied territories in eastern and southern Ukraine, including Crimea. In return, Moscow must agree to a ceasefire and stop offensive operations. This is a classic example of a “frozen conflict” policy, where the war is stopped, but the final political decision is postponed indefinitely.
It is clear that this approach has both supporters and strong opponents. Kyiv immediately reacted with caution. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine would not agree to any negotiations with Russia until a complete ceasefire is reached. And even then, any peaceful settlement must include the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from all occupied territories, including Crimea.
Zelenskyy’s statement clearly outlines Ukraine’s position, which is based on the principles of international law and the preservation of territorial integrity. And although pressure on Kyiv from some international partners is growing, Ukraine continues to stand by its position of full sovereignty over all its lands.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed readiness for direct talks with Kyiv, but refused to extend the Easter truce. According to his press secretary, Moscow is ready to discuss the cessation of strikes on civilian infrastructure, but only if Ukraine “removes a number of obstacles.” The Kremlin traditionally does not specify what exactly it means.
This creates a situation where neither side is ready to take the first step, and this is obviously the reason for the American ultimatum. The United States, through J.D. Vance, is sending a signal: either Kyiv and Moscow show the political will to end the war, or the United States will leave the process. This decision, as Vance emphasized, does not mean a withdrawal of support for Ukraine, but is a clear indicator of Washington’s fatigue with delaying diplomatic initiatives.
At the same time, the American leadership recognizes that achieving peace requires territorial concessions. This is the most painful and sensitive point in the entire discussion. For Ukraine, such a concession looks like a political surrender, while for the West it is a pragmatic end to a futile war.
The international community, including the EU and the UN, has so far refrained from publicly commenting on the US initiative. Diplomatic circles are speculating that such proposals are an attempt to “take the temperature” before the active phase of new negotiations. Closed consultations between the G7 countries, NATO, and representatives of both sides of the conflict are expected to take place in Europe in the coming weeks.
The risks remain high. The proposal to freeze the war could stop the bloodshed – but it could also lock in the status quo, which legitimizes the aggression. For Ukraine, this would mean years of uncertainty, limited access to investors, the threat of new offensives, and political turbulence.
Читайте нас у Telegram: головні новини коротко
