There is a very strange double standard when it comes to the way a “peace” deal is being discussed between Ukraine and Russia. Basically, nothing Putin says is to be taken seriously, but on the other hand, Ukraine is supposed to have to make concessions based on the fact that no matter what Putin says, he actually wants a deal where Ukraine is a sovereign state.
It is worth noting the number of articles in the Western media that claim that Ukraine must somehow agree to a (non-existent) peace deal with Russia. This non-existent peace deal theory is promoted periodically, most notably, I think, by Samuel Sharap and others.
JOIN TELEGRAM!
Follow our war coverage at @Kyivpost_official.
This week, the New York Times published a very strange argument on this issue in an op-ed, which put the onus on Ukraine to seek a peace deal entirely. Indeed, if you read that piece, and Charap's earlier piece, you'll see that Russia is trying to make a peace deal, but that it's pesky Ukrainians (and their partners) who are to blame for its unwillingness to do the right thing.
The article states that Russia is a true peace partner and that the Putin regime is committed to reaching an agreement. As the article clearly states, Russia wants to negotiate an agreement, but Ukraine is not making enough efforts to reach an agreement.
Russia has expressed a willingness to negotiate but has not been invited to the meeting because Ukraine suspects Russia will use the meeting as a pretense.
Other topics of interest
HUR hacks Russian city government's Ulyanovsk website
A source at the Kyiv Post HUR confirmed that Ukrainian hackers had posted a fake entry on the website of the Ulyanovsk regional administration calling for a rally in support of a “special military operation.”
An interesting example the article gives to show how committed Putin is to peace is Tucker Carlson's interview with the Russian dictator.
Moreover, in the envisaged deal, Ukraine would make all major concessions and Russia would be offered sweet terms to accept the deal, thus forcing Ukraine to accept that it cannot get back the lands occupied by Russia. Moreover, since no specific date for NATO membership is given, Ukraine would be forced to accept that it cannot join NATO now (or ever).
See the section on the peace agreement regarding territory here
Yes, Ukraine is absolutely right, but that is not the issue: Ukraine should effectively give up the territory and make no further attempts to retake it.
Ukraine has pledged not to give up any territory. This is backed by international law prohibiting the seizure of territory by force, and Ukraine should not abandon its legitimate claims to it. But securing a lasting ceasefire may require Russia to acknowledge that it has control, though not sovereignty, over four Ukrainian regions and parts of Crimea and to halt attempts to retake the occupied territories by force.
This is the NATO peace deal.
As part of a peace deal, Ukraine may have to suspend its NATO membership application and promise not to join for five to 10 years. This commitment is made easier because NATO member states are still not united on admitting a country at war, for fear that membership could lead to a NATO war with nuclear-armed Russia. Still, it would be a major concession.
Simply put, Ukraine would give up its legally held territory, give up prospects for NATO membership, and give Putin time to rebuild his military.
However, Ukraine could enter into bilateral treaties with NATO allies for security assistance, as it has already done with France, Germany, and the UK, for example. Future security guarantees would need to include strong provisions for providing weapons and intelligence to Ukraine, and for preventing cyber attacks. However, Ukraine's allies would probably not be allowed to establish military bases on Ukrainian territory.
Simply put, Ukraine would give up its legally held territory, give up prospects for NATO membership, and give Putin time to rebuild his military.
So what concessions will Russia make? Apparently nothing. In fact, the author argues that Putin should be given sweet terms for Ukraine to accept this terrible deal, including easing sanctions and returning to buying Russian oil at market prices. In other words, a huge capital infusion into Russia is something Ukraine must also accept.
To make a peace deal more palatable to Russia, they could offer sanctions relief contingent on compliance with the agreement. Russia would then be able to trade its oil and natural gas at market prices, but the West could provide a mechanism for quickly reimposing sanctions if necessary, known as a snapback. Russia would regain access to gold and foreign exchange reserves that it had withheld from the West.
In summary, the story goes that Putin really wants a deal, he gets all the territory he currently holds, Ukraine stops trying to recover it, Ukraine gives up on short-term prospects of joining NATO, Russia gets rich from sanctions relief, and Russia will be allowed to rebuild its military.
It is hard to imagine a “peace” agreement so perfectly constructed not to bring about peace.
Thankfully, Putin stepped in and exposed the nonsense of such discussions. A few hours after the article was published, Putin announced that he would indeed discuss a ceasefire, but that Ukraine would have to cede much more territory, withdraw permanently from NATO, etc.
First of all, we start from the basic position that Putin did not launch a war of conquest in 2022 (or in 2014).
“We did not start the war,” the Russian president said. “It was the Kiev regime that started it.”
According to Putin, Ukraine must give up all of the territories illegally annexed by Russia (including many areas not occupied by Russia, such as the west bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Oblast), and Ukraine must not only abandon its hopes of NATO, but also commit to limiting its military power in the future (making it at Russia's mercy in the future). Here is one news article that summarises his position:
Putin has insisted that Kiev should fully withdraw from all four annexed regions and essentially cede them to Moscow within their administrative borders. Russia has yet to seize the administrative capital of Zaporizhia in the southeast, which had a pre-war population of about 700,000. In the neighboring Kherson region, Moscow withdrew from the region of the same name, the region's largest city and capital, in November 2022.
To get an idea of how much territory Ukraine will have to give up, look at the map of the illegally annexed territories (Russia actually owns less territory now; at the time the territories were annexed, Russia occupied the city of Kherson and some areas of the West Bank):
Thankfully, Putin’s intervention makes two things clear: he doesn’t really want “peace” at this point. He wants to illegally occupy large parts of Ukraine, rebuild its military, and keep Ukraine out of NATO. He wants a situation in the future where he can resume the war on his terms. And secondly, those who insist on such a deal are putting Ukraine in an impossible dilemma: Ukraine is expected to make all the concessions, and Russia gets all the benefits. Moreover, they are basing their argument on Putin’s willingness to negotiate in good faith.
This week, President Trump made it clear once again how little he cares about Ukraine.
This seems odd. Putin is clearly willing to massacre his own people in order to seize strategically irrelevant farmland. He has shown himself content to continue bombing civilians across Ukraine, committing countless war crimes, and denying Ukrainian statehood. This is the reality we are seeing. Moreover, he is awaiting the results of the 2024 presidential elections, which will almost certainly give him the happy prospect of a Trump presidency. Just this week, Trump once again made it known how little he cares about Ukraine.
At a meeting with Republican lawmakers this week, President Trump opposed a $60 billion aid bill for Ukraine, saying the United States has no interest in Ukraine doing well in the war.
According to the lawmakers, Trump also criticized the $60 billion bailout package for Ukraine that was recently passed with Republican support.
“He's saying, if Ukraine wins, what benefit is there to it?” Republican Rep. Don Bacon told reporters.
People always like to say they want peace. But sometimes peace is not obtained, and “peace” agreements do not lead to peace. We are in such a situation now. Russia does not want peace on any other terms than the mutilation and strategic degradation of Ukraine. This will only create the conditions for a future war in Europe.
Sadly, if Ukraine wants war (and it does), it is up to its supporters to give Ukraine the help it needs to win it. That is the best path to peace.
This article is abridged and reprinted from the author's blog. Please see the original article here.
The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
Phillips P. O'Brien
Phillips P. O'Brien is Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of St Andrews in Scotland.
