We all want “peace.” Only those who are debauched, crazed, and simply empty vessels of malice and hate (though in human form) would start and begin a senseless war of conquest… a war that devastates their neighbors while burdening their nation with costs and casualties… all based on mythical claims and fabricated fears.
Make no mistake about it. The “Western” world (that word, thankfully, still has some meaning) is facing a successor to Hitler and Stalin, dating back to the Mongol invasions that devastated much of the then Western world and left multiple pyramids of human skulls as their sole legacy. It was the same sentiment then that a prominent Russian columnist recently expressed in one of Russia’s most influential state-sponsored publications, that “no one should be left alive in Ukraine.”
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
The current war is a replay of those terrible years of 13th-century Europe when Prince Danylo of Galicia-Volyn was acknowledged and crowned “King of Ruthenia” (the historical name for Ukraine) by Pope Innocent IV for defending Christendom against the Mongols. It was also the period when Prince of Novgorod Nevsky and his son were paying tribute to, and laying the foundations of the Russian state in collaboration with the Mongols. Those ancient wars of two very different worlds – the Russian world (“mir”) and that of the West – are now coming to a close. The future of both will be decided in Ukraine.
Zelensky Says Putin Does Not Want Peace After Rejecting Meeting Proposal
The only “deal” that would bring Putin to the table is one negotiated not with the carrot but the stick.
President Trump deserves credit for publicly acknowledging the possibility that Putin was “tapping [him] along.” It was an honest expression of error. He had been convinced that Putin was a “nice man” and could be persuaded by offers of trade and investments, as well as Ukrainian concessions, to accept a “settlement” of that war. But Putin is among the richest, if not the richest, of men, and dismissive of any offers other than Ukraine’s capitulation – and that was not Trump’s to give. Trump’s error was the error of many Westerners who simply failed to understand the Russian mind or to learn from history.
The only “deal” that would bring Putin to the table is one negotiated not with the carrot but the stick. And the only “deal” that would make sense for all parties is not a “ceasefire” but one that would free Russia of its numerous pathologies of myth, domination, and violence. A “ceasefire” is, at best, simply the kicking of the can down the road while one party builds up its defenses and the other rearms, regroups, and starts a new and more terrible war.
As Ukraine’s president has often stated, Russia started the war, and Ukraine must end it. No imposed diplomatic artifice by third parties will hold. Both Putin and Zelensky understand this, but America’s president and Western leaders are still hesitant to wield their overwhelming economic and military cudgel. They worry about “nuclear war,” while Kremlin officials worry about the viability of their nuclear force and what holes in Siberia would be deep enough in which to hide from the wrath of their people. Putin would certainly miss his luxurious pleasure dome by the sea.
Before any long-term “peace” settlement is realized, we must have answers to the following questions: Will Putin remove his troops from the Ukrainian territory they now occupy in breach of their guarantees? Will he return the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children they abducted and the thousands of Ukrainian political prisoners they are holding? Will he agree to reparations for the damage and human losses they caused? Will he agree to locate and bring war criminals to justice? Will he return all the looted historical, cultural, and literary treasures from museums and libraries? Will he agree to Ukraine’s sovereign right to partner with Europe? If the answer is negative to all or any part of these questions, then what, precisely, will Ukraine get out of a ceasefire that it can’t get from simple capitulation?
What, exactly, will Ukraine get out of a “ceasefire” except a period of troubled and intermittent “peace” followed by a more powerful full-scale invasion?
Why should Ukraine not believe all those top Russian officials – starting with Putin – who have made it clear that their goal, after “peace” is restored, is to rearm, regroup, and “take back” the rest of Ukraine as well as the various East European nations and Russian speakers that were once part of the Soviet “mir.” Will America and Europe be prepared to enforce the ceasefire and “peace” by deploying armed forces to face Russian troops at Ukraine’s borders and a “no-fly” zone over Ukraine’s territory? Then what, exactly, will Ukraine get out of a “ceasefire” except a period of troubled and intermittent “peace” followed by a more powerful full-scale invasion?
Conversely, what does Ukraine (and the Western world) lose in a “ceasefire”? It will usher in a period of reduced Western emphasis on rearmament as its politicians, under public pressure, refocus on domestic issues. It will leave five to six million Ukrainian citizens under brutal and repressive occupation. It will make available a pool of 1.5 million military-age teenagers and young men for forced conscription against NATO and Ukraine. It will leave the natural and industrial resources of the region to reimburse Russia for its war and rebuild its military. It will rescind most of the sanctions, thus facilitating Russia’s economic renewal. It will replace the Ukrainian population of the occupied territory with outsiders. It will elevate Russia’s standing in the world to that of the US and the EU and foster authoritarianism and jingoism across the globe. And it will be the beginning of the end of America’s prominence and leadership in the world.
There is a third option. We saw it in Stalin’s ballyhooed Red Army – the most powerful in the world at that time – giving up on his ambitions to bring Finland to heel in 1939. We saw it in the videos of defeated Russian troops moving back to the USSR from Afghanistan after nearly 10 years of combat. And we saw it again in the 1980s when President Reagan precipitated an economic collapse of that evil empire.
That option recognizes two critical factors that may be decisive in the war’s outcome:
- In penetrating the smoke Putin is blowing, many economists and analysts claim that his economy is running on fumes (or will be shortly).
- Ukraine is in a far better position than it was before. It is nearing 50% dependency on its own military production. It is almost ready to unleash far-ranging, powerful, evasive, and accurate missiles and drones, as well as superior artillery, on the multiple military, infrastructure, and industrial sites it could not have touched previously.
What Ukraine needs now is a firm, immediate and reliable commitment by Western powers to a) supply Ukraine with what it needs in its fight, and to close the skies over Ukraine; and b) tighten sanctions into an economic stranglehold that would collapse Putin’s already crumbling war economy and reduce his ability to finance a new war.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
