Photo/Illutration Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly speaks during the G-7 foreign ministers meeting in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, on March 13. Alongside Joly are EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. (SAUL LOEB/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo)

The proposed cease-fire agreement in Ukraine, while not flawless, holds the potential to foster trust and pave the way for lasting peace if implemented with sincerity.

However, Russia's refusal to accept the cease-fire—demanding various conditions—acts as a significant barrier. This stance is not only extremely irresponsible but also serves to unnecessarily prolong the conflict.

More than three years have elapsed since Russia initiated its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Recently, Ukraine and the United States reached a consensus on a 30-day immediate cease-fire.

In accepting this proposal, Ukraine set aside its long-standing insistence on comprehensive and robust safeguards to forestall a renewed Russian invasion.

It seems that Kyiv prioritized repairing the strained relationship between President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. President Donald Trump, following their contentious recent meeting in Washington.

This adjustment aims to facilitate the resumption of military support and critical intelligence sharing from the United States.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, while expressing gratitude for Trump's mediation efforts, dismissed the proposal as unacceptable, citing the possibility of the Ukrainian military regrouping during the cease-fire.

Putin further argued that the temporary cease-fire should “lead to long-term peace and eliminate the root causes of this crisis," revealing his continued pursuit of the original goal: militarily and politically incapacitating Ukraine and subordinating it to Russia.

His duty, however, is clear—he must immediately halt the war of aggression in violation of international law, withdraw troops from Ukraine and liberate the occupied territories.

Yet, he refuses even a temporary cease-fire, using self-serving reasoning that underscores his responsibility for the war's continuation.

Despite this, Putin has shown interest in phone discussions with Trump, signaling his intent to persuade the U.S. president of the unilateral claim that "the responsibility lies with Ukraine.”

Amid these developments, the foreign ministers of the Group of Seven leading democracies, including Japan, the United States and major European powers, have urged Russia to “reciprocate by agreeing to a cease-fire on equal terms and implementing it fully.”

This marks a diplomatic milestone with far-reaching implications.

Last month's G-7 summit, held online, failed to produce a joint statement due to differing views on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, this time, the statement reaffirms unwavering support for Ukraine “in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty and independence.”

The G-7 diplomats also stressed the necessity of “robust and credible security arrangements to ensure that Ukraine can deter and defend against any renewed acts of aggression.” This represents a significant step forward.

The diplomatic efforts by European nations deserve commendation. The cease-fire agreement between the United States and Ukraine was built upon proposals from Europe, particularly Britain and France.

Following Zelenskyy's fallout with Trump, it was Europe that mediated between Washington and Kyiv.

Japan, which has yet to play a notable role in these diplomatic initiatives, has much to learn from Europe’s adept handling of these efforts.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 16