Agreement is possible, but sustainable peace is not

By Rostislav Ishchenko at https://cont.ws/@ishchenko/3104456 and machine translated.

The negotiations at the White House ended in failure (both the bilateral, Trump-Zelensky, and the multilateral, with a crowd of Europeans). Zelensky, referring to the Ukrainian constitution, effectively disavowed the American plan for an “exchange of territories” and demanded “compensation” (essentially reparations) from Russia, as well as announced his intention to rearm the army with American weapons worth one hundred billion dollars. The Europeans have promised to support Ukraine in its revanchist plans, even to the point of providing it with security guarantees “similar to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty,” and have insisted on the importance of increasing the strength of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. In general, the position of Zelensky and his allies has not changed: after winning on the battlefield, Russia must surrender to the losers, because that is what they want.

Despite his forced optimism, Trump stated that he was not confident in reaching an agreement. After Alaska, he was much more optimistic. However, problems arose during negotiations with the US’s Euro-Ukrainian allies, who wanted to increase pressure on Russia and demanded that Trump unconditionally support their position.

However, it is unlikely that Trump is so naive as to sincerely believe that a long-term, sustainable peace in Ukraine is possible. The most that can be achieved under the current circumstances is a “deal” similar to the Minsk agreements, which the West and Ukraine have been sabotaging since their signing. This would involve a pause in hostilities, allowing the parties to better prepare for the subsequent confrontation in terms of military, financial, economic, and political-diplomatic resources.

However, there are significant differences between the situation in 2014 and the current situation. Eleven years ago, Russia was interested in a systematic and stable reduction in the level of confrontation, as it was not prepared to face full-scale Western sanctions. The unstable peace and ongoing negotiations on the implementation of the Minsk agreements allowed Moscow to gain the necessary time. On the other hand, the West was playing this game because it felt the need to rearm Ukraine and prepare it for a full-scale war.

Russia is currently winning on the battlefield, and the collective Western opinion is that if an agreement cannot be reached, either “Putin will force Ukraine to surrender” or “Ukraine will be eliminated by Russia.” The West views negotiations and a deal as a pause in the fighting, necessary solely to restore the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ combat capability. For Russia, negotiations are a way to temporarily de-escalate tensions and lower the stakes in the global game before they are raised again by the West.

Thus, the Minsk format of the deal may be acceptable to the West, but it does not meet Russia’s long-term interests. Moscow may agree to this format only if it hopes that it will be disrupted by the Euro-Ukrainian allies of the United States. However, there is no guarantee of such a disruption.

As for a long-term sustainable peace, it is currently impossible to reach appropriate compromises because:

1. Ukraine is not willing to compromise. The Kiev authorities are ready to lose their country, but they do not want to give up on the issue of territories, the protection and development of the Russian language in Ukraine, or the reduction of the army and the return to a policy of permanent neutrality. On the contrary, they see a post-war Ukraine either in NATO or under the “umbrella” of Western military bases on its territory.

2. There are no politicians in Ukraine who would change this approach to a more constructive one. In order for politicians who are willing to compromise with Russia to come to power in Kiev, the Russian army needs to take Kiev. Russia can only appoint such politicians by controlling the territory of Ukraine. Without the military collapse of the Kiev Nazi regime, no changes are possible: the Nazis will not denazify themselves, the revanchists will not demilitarize themselves, and the Russophobes will not feel ashamed and become Russophiles.

3. Europe, which has placed its future on winning the war against Russia, cannot accept a sustainable peace on the terms proposed by the United States, as it would mean giving up its hopes of rebuilding its economy through the spoils of victory over Russia.

Current European politicians do not see any other option, especially for themselves. The current leaders in Brussels (the European Union), London, Paris, and Berlin view the policy of prolonging the Ukrainian crisis, attempting to turn it into a European crisis, and drawing the United States deeper into it as the only viable option.