El conflicto ruso-ucraniano ha demostrado ser resistente a soluciones rápidas debido a la complejidad geopolítica y los intereses estratégicos involucrados. Aunque hubo un intento de acuerdo en marzo de 2025 entre EE.UU. y Ucrania para una tregua de 30 días con Rusia, y aunque Putin expresó disposición, aún quedan “preguntas pendientes” según la BBC. Esto indica que, aunque hay una voluntad inicial, la implementación oficial de un alto al fuego bilateral enfrenta obstáculos reales.
Además, Rusia ha demostrado en el pasado que su participación en acuerdos internacionales puede ser ambigua o condicionada por demandas difíciles de cumplir (por ejemplo, el control territorial o la membresía de Ucrania en la OTAN). Por eso, el escenario más probable sigue siendo que el acuerdo oficial entre en vigor después de 2025, a pesar de esfuerzos diplomáticos actuales.
Why do you think you're right?
The formation of the “Coalition of the Willing” with over 30 countries, including major European powers like the UK, France, and Germany, shows strong political commitment to Ukraine’s defense. As of April 2025, operational plans for a “reassurance force” are already “well developed,” and strategic troop placement across Ukrainian territory has been publicly discussed. The presence of high-level coordination and involvement of both NATO and EU representatives increases the likelihood of deployment before 31 December 2025. The urgency to deter Russian aggression, especially after recent escalations, further supports this timeline.
Additionally, France’s President Macron has clearly stated that the force would not be a traditional peacekeeping mission but a deterrent force. This aligns with the resolution criteria as it implies a physical military presence within Ukraine’s borders, which meets the defined condition for a positive resolution.
Why might you be wrong?
There are significant political and logistical constraints that could delay or derail the deployment. Some European countries may hesitate to provoke Russia directly, and opposition from the U.S. could influence key coalition members to pursue alternative arrangements. There’s also ambiguity in the exact composition and role of the “reassurance force,” and a shift towards non-deployed security guarantees might be preferred. Lastly, the presence of coalition members within NATO could blur operational authority, potentially disqualifying certain deployments under the resolution’s strict criteria.