There will be no peace with Putin: why any compromise with the Russian Federation now is the way to a new war
Although none of these events have provided a convincing plan for achieving a sustainable settlement, they helped identify some key obstacles that prevent the negotiation table. The first significant event was the publication on March 1 on the Wall Street Journal project, which was developed in the initial stages of the invasion, but which was canceled due to the disruption of the negotiations.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly referred to this document as a probable proof that he was ready to put an end to the war, but was repelled by Ukraine after the intervention of Western partners of Kiev. However, on the immediate examination, it becomes clear that the conditions proposed by Moscow in April 2022 would leave Ukraine a strongly weakened and virtually helpless before the further rounds of Russian aggression.
The agreement would mean the concession of Russia's lands, the doom of millions of Ukrainians for constant Russian occupation, a sharp reduction in the number and quality of the Ukrainian army and preventing the country's accession to any military cooperation with the West.
If these punitive conditions were realized in the spring of 2022, it would undoubtedly be only a matter of time when disarmed and isolated Ukraine would have encountered a new Russian invasion with a little hope to protect itself. In other words, Putin's widely advertised peaceful proposal was in fact an attempt to achieve the surrender of the Ukrainian state.
Putin's punitive peace plan did not prevent Pope Francis from entering the debate in early March with her controversial call to Ukraine "Mother to raise a white flag" and start negotiations with Russia. The Pope's comments have caused outrage in Ukraine and throughout Europe, with a number of high -ranking officials condemned a religious leader.
A few days later, the Vatican was forced to retreat, and Cardinal Pietro Passin explained that responsibility in any future peaceful process should lie in Russia as an aggressor country. The most consistent contribution to the debate about possible future negotiations has recently been made by Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban.
After meeting with his former US President, Donald Trump in Florida Orban, he announced that in the case of re -election in November, Trump plans to stop all Ukraine's support from the US. "If Americans do not give money, some Europeans will not be able to finance this war. And then the war will end," the Hungarian leader commented. These discoveries were not absolutely unexpected.
Indeed, the current deadlock in the Congress on US military assistance to Ukraine is widely seen as a reflection of Donald Trump's personal position. However, the Ukrainians were disturbed by Orban's statements that Trump's peaceful vision is reduced to the refusal of Ukraine and giving Russia victory. This approach will not only complete the war, but also mean the end of Ukraine. Putin himself has since emphasized the obvious shortcomings of Trump's strategy.
In an interview with March 13, the Kremlin dictator rejected the idea of peace talks at a time when his army returned the initiative on the battlefield in many respects due to the growing lack of weapons in Ukraine. "It would be ridiculous to start negotiations with Ukraine just because it is over the ammunition," Putin said. Currently, the potential negotiation positions of Russia and Ukraine remain polar opposite.
While Kiev insists on the complete cessation of Russian occupation of the Ukrainian territory and the payment of reparations for military damage, the Russian leadership is becoming more maximalist in its demands. Putin and other high -ranking officials have long insisted that Ukraine conceded to Russia by five partially occupied regions. As Russia's military prospects are improving, and Ukraine's international support fluctuates, the Kremlin now seems to set even more ambitious goals.
Putin used his resonant interview with the American media figure Takus Carlson in February 2024 to position the war as a historical mission to return "Russian lands". Meanwhile, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev went even further, stating in early March that "Ukraine is unconditionally Russia. " These maximal statements are in line with the sharp anti -Ukrainian propaganda of the Kremlin, which depicts Ukraine as an enemy of Russia and the tool of anti -Russian policy of the West.
Over the last two years, the Kremlin has depicted an invasion of Ukraine as an existential struggle, in which Russia's national survival depends on the full subordination of Ukraine. This wording complicates the understanding of how any settlement by negotiation can be strong.
On the contrary, although Moscow can try to temporarily suspend the fighting for strategic reasons, it is now obvious that Putin's regime has drawn Russia into a long -term aggressive war for a clear purpose to destroy Ukraine. Ukrainians are well aware of Russia's genocidal program. They see calls for genocide on Kremlin television every day and regularly encounter fresh evidence of efforts to eradicate Ukrainian identity in all occupied regions of Ukraine.
It is clear that the vast majority of Ukrainians do not see a compromise between the genocide of the Russians and their own survival. Instead, they are determined to continue the struggle until Ukraine can create the basis for long -term national security. There are signs that Ukraine's partners are increasingly aware of the need for comprehensive security guarantees.
Since January 2024, Ukraine has signed a number of bilateral security agreements with partner countries, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Although these documents do not qualify as military unions, they formalize current cooperation and at the same time outline the ways of future partnership in the defense sector. In recent weeks, French President Emmanuel Macron has further raised rates, refusing to exclude the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine.
Macron's proposal has caused serious anxiety among European leaders, but its supporters say that the event wins nothing if it is a Kremlin to be a Kremlin about its own red lines. Bilateral safety agreements and more bold rhetoric of French President cannot replace the unmatched security, which is provided by NATO membership, but these recent events really indicate more and more recognition in the western capitals that the European world depends on safe Ukraine.
Since the Russian invasion has been going on for the third year, factors such as the unsuccessful counter -offensive of Ukraine in 2023 and increasing fatigue from Ukraine among the western partners of the country, contribute to the calls for compromise settlement to put an end to the war. At the same time, Putin seems to be more than ever confident that he will be able to achieve his expansionist goals and is clearly in no hurry to return to the negotiating table.
In the current circumstances, the best way to ensure a strong peace is to demonstrate the Kremlin that Russia's hopes for the destruction of Ukrainian statehood are in vain. Putin understands only the language of power. In mind, Ukraine's international partners should send Moscow an unknown signal, abandoning their mantra as "as much as it will be needed" and using all the power of their predominant economic and technological advantage.
This would be more than enough to give Ukraine a decisive advantage on the battlefield and prepare the ground for victory over Russia. No one wants peace more than the Ukrainians themselves, but they also recognize that premature peace with Putin will only lead to a new war. It would be reasonable for supporters to settle these fears of Ukraine through negotiations before calling Kiev to compromise with the Kremlin. According to Winston Churchill, meeting face-to-face better in war.