“Ceasefires are temporary by their very nature”
I’m sure he though this sounded very smart and insightful (and not “weeellll akhcccctually”), but ceasefires
are not temporary by their nature. Peace treaties usually include permanent ceasefires (like for example Treaty of Versailles or Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), and ceasefire agreements that are solely ceasefire-only also need not suddenly stop (see, for example, 1954 Korean Armistice Agreement, which neither side recognised as an actual treaty (though under Trump it almost became one, but recently North Korea backed out), which is still more or less valid on both parties. Or see, in the more literal sense, the
agreement between China and India to only fight with sticks which both parties still adhere to).
Ceasefires by nature are only temporary if peace by nature is temporary, but that view requires one to not recognize peace, but instead recognize periods of preparation for another conflict, and by that interpretation ceasefires might not actually be real to begin with.