Recent efforts to create a “coalition of the willing” to facilitate a potential peace deal in Ukraine are very welcome, even if it is still unclear what exactly the participating countries are “willing” to do. The good news is that the talks on this issue appear to be moving steadily from the purely theoretical level to more practical military issues. In particular, it is encouraging to see Ukraine’s European partners acknowledging the need for genuine deterrence, rather than a toothless UN peacekeeping mission.
The bad news is that the entire debate about the possible deployment of Western troops in Ukraine continues to be overshadowed by concerns about an inevitable Russian backlash. While British and French officials insist they do not need a green light from Moscow, a significant number of their European counterparts disagree. Moreover, many of those who appear to support Western troops in Ukraine appear willing to give Putin a veto on other critical issues affecting Ukraine’s long-term security, such as the country’s aspirations to join NATO.
Attempts to find some kind of consensus with the Kremlin on Ukraine’s future security are futile and fundamentally misjudge the expansionist goals underlying Russia’s invasion. After more than three years of full-scale war, it should be painfully obvious to any objective observer that Putin has no legitimate security interests at heart, but is instead hell-bent on erasing Ukraine as a state and a nation.
Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Putin has demonstrated time and again that he has no intention of seeking a sustainable solution that could lead to peaceful coexistence between the Russian Federation and an independent Ukraine. On the contrary, he still seeks to erase the Ukrainian state from the world map. This is most evident in the systematic eradication of Ukrainian national identity in all areas of the country that are currently under Kremlin control.
Putin’s current negotiating position is also revealing. The Kremlin dictator continues to insist on a demilitarized and neutral Ukraine, with Kyiv denied further Western aid and forced to cede large swaths of additional Ukrainian territory that the Russian army has so far failed to occupy. If implemented, these so-called peace terms would amount to a complete capitulation that would leave Ukraine divided, isolated, and effectively defenseless against further Russian aggression. It would then be only a matter of time before Putin completed his conquest.
Given what we now know about Russia’s military aims in Ukraine, it makes no sense to allow Putin to set the agenda for peace talks or dominate the debate over future security guarantees. His imperial ambitions clearly leave no room for any meaningful compromise that would guarantee Ukraine’s national survival or serve as the basis for a lasting peace in the wider region.
Instead, Ukrainians should focus on convincing the country’s European partners that they do not need Russia’s consent before acting to protect Ukrainian sovereignty and ensure their own security. One of the most persuasive arguments in this regard was provided by Putin himself. After all, the Russian ruler did not consult Western leaders when he invited North Korean soldiers to join his war against Ukraine or when he deployed Russian nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus.
It is a mistake to think that offering Putin concessions will persuade him to abandon his expansionist agenda. In fact, as long as Ukraine’s Western partners continue to seek Putin’s permission before taking steps to protect themselves, they will never be safe. If the leaders of the democratic world are serious about achieving a lasting peace in Europe, they must act decisively to provide Ukraine with credible security guarantees, regardless of whether Putin agrees or not.
Alena Getmanchuk is Director of the New Europe Center and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.
Source: Source
