UK Distances Itself from Macron’s Proposed Ukraine Ceasefire

[Social Media]

 

Britain has distanced itself from French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal for a one-month ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, despite his claims that both nations were advocating for the truce. Macron announced on Sunday that France and Britain were pushing for a four-week pause in fighting “in the air, at sea, and on energy infrastructure,” though it would not initially extend to ground combat.  

 

However, Kyiv has expressed concerns about any ceasefire that lacks security guarantees. On Monday, a British official clarified that no agreement had been reached on Macron’s proposed truce. “There are various options on the table, subject to further discussions with the US and European partners, but a one-month truce has not been agreed,” the official told the *Financial Times.*  

 

France has maintained that a temporary ceasefire would be a test of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s sincerity in wanting to end the war. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot defended the plan, stating on *France Inter* radio that a one-month truce “would allow to prove the good will of Vladimir Putin if he commits to a truce.” He added, “And it’s then that real peace negotiations would start. We want a solid peace and a durable peace.”  

 

Barrot emphasized that this initial truce would be a way to assess whether Russia is genuinely willing to end the conflict. However, he also specified that the proposal does not require Russian troops to withdraw from occupied Ukrainian territory during the ceasefire period. His remarks followed a summit in London, where European leaders reaffirmed their support for Ukraine after a tense exchange between former US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.  

 

Macron revealed his ceasefire plan during an interview with *Le Figaro* on his flight back from the London summit. The publication noted that Macron does not trust any ceasefire agreement brokered between the US and Russia, believing that Putin’s true aim is to humiliate Ukraine by demilitarizing it. Instead, Macron and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have suggested a four-week ceasefire that would not involve ground forces.  

 

The French president explained that the advantage of this type of ceasefire is that it can be easily measured. “You have to bear in mind that the front line today is the equivalent of the Paris-Budapest line (in terms of distance). In the event of a ceasefire, it would be very difficult to check that the front was being respected,”

 

Macron said. He added that European peacekeeping troops would not be deployed immediately but could be introduced later as negotiations progress. “There will be no European troops on Ukrainian soil in the coming weeks. The question is how we use this time to try to obtain an accessible truce, with negotiations that will take several weeks and then, once peace has been signed, a deployment.”  

 

However, the UK government has downplayed Macron’s remarks. Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard stated that there was no formal agreement on the truce. “No agreement has been made on what a truce looks like,” he told *Times Radio.* “But we are working together with France and our European allies to look at what is the path to how... we create a lasting and durable peace in Ukraine.”  

 

Pollard stressed the importance of US involvement in any peace effort, saying, “We think it essential there is a US backstop to make this work.” When pressed further, he maintained, “At the moment we’ve pledged that the UK will step up as part of that multinational movement. We’re still working through those negotiations at the moment. I don’t think it’s right to get into making an announcement before we’ve obviously reached the deal, which I obviously can’t do… If the US isn’t involved, we will struggle to get that durable peace.”  

 

UK government sources have suggested that Macron’s comments were premature, reiterating that multiple options remain under discussion with the US and European allies. Meanwhile, both the UK and France are working on forming a “Europe Plus” coalition to safeguard Ukraine in the event of a peace deal. Canada and Turkey are among the nations involved in talks to join what has been described as Starmer’s “coalition of the willing,” which could involve sending troops to Ukraine to help enforce any agreement.  

 

This plan is reportedly part of the UK and France’s response to private requests made by Trump after his highly publicized confrontation with Zelensky in the Oval Office last Friday, *Bloomberg* reports. As diplomatic negotiations continue, the question remains whether a temporary ceasefire can serve as a meaningful step toward lasting peace—or if it would merely give Russia an opportunity to strengthen its position.

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-05

 

 

[Thingamabob]

What is the point of Macron's proposed cease fire if it does not apply to ground forces ?

[mrwebb8825]

On 3/5/2025 at 4:52 AM, Thingamabob said:

What is the point of Macron's proposed cease fire if it does not apply to ground forces ?

Viva La France - Motto: Wine, Cheese, We Give Up.

 

Pull ALL ground forces back 50 miles each with Europe AND America VOWING to take out the leader that violates it. Either leader may bring suspicious activity claims against the other to the table but may NOT act on them on their own.

Gives everyone time to deescalate and take a breath.

Putin wouldn't dare draw the EU, NATO AND America into the fight against him and IF Zelensky is a real leader and not just a comedian in drag that fell into the job, he'll comply

[LiamB80]

Starmer is willing to sacrifice every British white male into the meat grinder to please his satanic overlords in the EU.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/5/2025 at 1:02 PM, Social Media said:

However, Kyiv has expressed concerns about any ceasefire that lacks security guarantees.

When are they going to realise that no sane country is going to commit to actually providing troops to defend Ukraine, which would lead to nuclear war if they invaded Russia, or even perhaps if Russia was defeated in Ukraine.

Without an agreement that gives Russia a reason not to simply resume the war in the future, it's all just waffle.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

IF Zelensky is a real leader and not just a comedian in drag that fell into the job, he'll comply

Sorry to educate you, but he is just a comedian cosplaying a president, IMO.

 

BTW, it would set a precedent that would not endear leaders all over the world if your solution was actually adopted ( with Europe AND America VOWING to take out the leader that violates it. ).

[bkk6060]

Good luck to Euro in dealing with Zelensky who seems to be the problem. 

[sammieuk1]

A cluster of fascist orange making by a lone double axis of evil🤔

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/5/2025 at 1:02 PM, Social Media said:

He added that European peacekeeping troops would not be deployed immediately but could be introduced later as negotiations progress.

I wonder what the rules of engagement would be, which is rather important. In conflicts around the world "peacekeepers" have proven unable to actually keep the peace eg in Lebanon where they do nothing against the invader, and in various conflicts in Africa. In Haiti all they did was give them cholera, and in the Yugoslavian war all they did was trundle around in those toy tanks and wring their hands at each atrocity.

[KireB]

19 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

Good luck to Euro in dealing with Zelensky who seems to be the problem. 

[connda]

Europe including France (Macron), UK, and the collective EU are pretty much toothless as well as irrelevant.  The only players are the two super-powers: US and Russia.  They can scream for ceasefires (code for "re-arming) until the cows come home - they won't happen until Russia and the US say they happen.  The rhetoric from the EU and UK is starting to sound like (study history) the same rants by Napoleonic France and Germany pre-Operation Barbarossa.
If the EU and UK figure that "third-time is a charm" they better wake up to the fact that will actually become the death-knell of the European Union.  At worse, these morons may end up provoking a nuclear war.  Read the history of the UK and Europe: these people have been at war like forever.  War is in their blood...they can't stop. And the UK and European elites (leaders) have for centuries and generations - hated Russia and ethnic Russians.  And they hate each other.  Hate and War; War and Hate - that is the essence of Europe including the UK.

"Ceasefire?" Not going to happen.

[thaibeachlovers]

29 minutes ago, connda said:

Europe including France (Macron), UK, and the collective EU are pretty much toothless as well as irrelevant.  The only players are the two super-powers: US and Russia.  They can scream for ceasefires (code for "re-arming) until the cows come home - they won't happen until Russia and the US say they happen.  The rhetoric from the EU and UK is starting to sound like (study history) the same rants by Napoleonic France and Germany pre-Operation Barbarossa.
If the EU and UK figure that "third-time is a charm" they better wake up to the fact that will actually become the death-knell of the European Union.  At worse, these morons may end up provoking a nuclear war.  Read the history of the UK and Europe: these people have been at war like forever.  War is in their blood...they can't stop. And the UK and European elites (leaders) have for centuries and generations - hated Russia and ethnic Russians.  And they hate each other.  Hate and War; War and Hate - that is the essence of Europe including the UK.

"Ceasefire?" Not going to happen.

I like that post.

 

Perhaps one day, wars will only happen when led from the front by the politicians that vote for them- which means wars won't happen.

[James105]

54 minutes ago, connda said:

And the UK and European elites (leaders) have for centuries and generations - hated Russia and ethnic Russians. 

Not sure that is entirely accurate.  Russia were allies in WW2.   In fact, if not for the Russians then the Nazis would have won.   

[henryford1958]

Putin knows he is holding all the cards. The US supports him and there will never be any European troops on the ground. He will not agree to a ceasefire until he gets all he wants.He keeps all current areas of control. No NATO membership for Ukraine. No peacekeepers. He can rest and rearm and attack again early 2026.

[JonnyF]

Starmer wants his war.

 

Blair had his. Why should Starmer miss out. Not fair. 

[rough diamond]

51 minutes ago, James105 said:

Not sure that is entirely accurate.  Russia were allies in WW2

Not at the beginning they weren't.  Russia invaded Poland 16 days after Germany did in WW11.

Russia only became an ally after Germany invaded Russia in June 1941.

 

Note that the USA only became an ally in December 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbour.

[RayC]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When are they going to realise that no sane country is going to commit to actually providing troops to defend Ukraine, which would lead to nuclear war if they invaded Russia, or even perhaps if Russia was defeated in Ukraine.

Without an agreement that gives Russia a reason not to simply resume the war in the future, it's all just waffle.

 

By that rationale, the rest of Europe should lay back and do nothing if Putin decides, for example, that he wants to reclaim the parts of Poland  that were formally Russian.

 

1930's style appeasement. Nothing more, nothing like.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, James105 said:

Not sure that is entirely accurate.  Russia were allies in WW2.   In fact, if not for the Russians then the Nazis would have won.   

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but only till they win the war for us. Then it's bad, bad, bad as usual.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, rough diamond said:

Not at the beginning they weren't.  Russia invaded Poland 16 days after Germany did in WW11.

Russia only became an ally after Germany invaded Russia in June 1941.

 

Note that the USA only became an ally in December 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Actually it wasn't the reason they joined the European war. That was because Hitler declared war on the US. If not for that they might have restricted their operations to the Pacific.

[connda]

7 hours ago, connda said:

Europe including France (Macron), UK, and the collective EU are pretty much toothless as well as irrelevant.  The only players are the two super-powers: US and Russia.  They can scream for ceasefires (code for "re-arming) until the cows come home - they won't happen until Russia and the US say they happen.  The rhetoric from the EU and UK is starting to sound like (study history) the same rants by Napoleonic France and Germany pre-Operation Barbarossa.
If the EU and UK figure that "third-time is a charm" they better wake up to the fact that will actually become the death-knell of the European Union.  At worse, these morons may end up provoking a nuclear war.  Read the history of the UK and Europe: these people have been at war like forever.  War is in their blood...they can't stop. And the UK and European elites (leaders) have for centuries and generations - hated Russia and ethnic Russians.  And they hate each other.  Hate and War; War and Hate - that is the essence of Europe including the UK.

"Ceasefire?" Not going to happen.

"Europe must trim its welfare state to build a warfare state"

-Janan Ganesh, Financial Times website, March 5, 2025.

 

Until the commoners rebel and kick their leaders out of office. 

[connda]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I like that post.

 

Perhaps one day, wars will only happen when led from the front by the politicians that vote for them- which means wars won't happen.

Well, imho every pro-war "leader" and politician should be given a rifle and immediately sent to the front to lead the troops from the front lines.  "Leading from the rear?"  That's called cowardice.  Those screaming for war the loudest are by far the most craven. If "leaders" were forced to the front, war would end in a hurry.

[johng]

6 minutes ago, connda said:

If "leaders" were forced to the front, war would end in a hurry.

Couldn't agree more.

[johng]

10 hours ago, henryford1958 said:

He can rest and rearm and attack again early 2026.

 Attack what ?  in your above scenario he has achieved his aims.

[rickudon]

14 hours ago, James105 said:

Not sure that is entirely accurate.  Russia were allies in WW2.   In fact, if not for the Russians then the Nazis would have won.   

Not necessarily true. First half of I940 was a good year for the Germans, but after that there luck was not so good. Lost the battle of Britain, their allies the Italians got there arse kicked in Africa, and the London Blitz didn't work all that well. Britain was then mobilising the Empire troops and navies, and was then on the offensive. Russia and USA were late to the fray. Admittedly without them it would have become a stalemate.