The latest negotiations between the Americans and the Russians have once again confirmed the obvious: nothing has fundamentally changed. Despite diplomatic activity, loud statements, and talk of compromises, the Kremlin’s strategic goal remains unchanged – the destruction of Ukraine as an independent state and Ukrainians as a separate nation.
For Putin, independent Ukraine is a historical mistake that he is trying to correct with war. And no diplomatic formulations can hide this goal.
There is another dimension to this war – the personal maniacal historical ambitions of the Russian dictator. Putin seeks to go down in history as another “communist of the Russian lands”, a successor to the work of the Moscow tsars and Soviet leaders, who expanded the empire through conquest, enslavement of peoples and the destruction of their statehood.
He understands well that such a role will find a grateful audience in Russian society. After all, the Russian people are infected with the bacillus of a special kind of Nazism – Russian imperial chauvinism. They are convinced of their own national exceptionalism, the right to dominate their neighbors and determine the fate of other peoples. This cult has been cultivated by the Russian state for centuries and has found broad public support. That is why territorial conquests are presented to the Russians as historical victories, and the conquest of neighboring peoples as the restoration of historical justice. Putin expects that new conquests will secure him a place in the pantheon of imperial heroes. And for this he is ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives.
At the same time, the Kremlin understands that it cannot achieve all its goals immediately. Therefore, it is trying to use the negotiation process to gain tactical advantages. First of all, the weakening or abolition of international sanctions and international recognition of the occupied Ukrainian territories. This is the key strategic task of the Muscovites. The first will allow Russia to obtain additional resources to continue the war. The second should legitimize the results of the aggression. Those who agree to this will create a dangerous precedent, when territories captured by force can be secured through diplomatic means.
And the Kremlin needs time. To replenish the army, restore military reserves, prepare new offensive operations and exhaust Ukraine. That is why one should not confuse the Russians’ willingness to talk with the willingness to end the war. Negotiations for Moscow are a continuation of the war by other means.
The American side may seek quick solutions, diplomatic successes, and agreements that can be presented as the end of a major international conflict. But there is a fundamental contradiction between Washington’s desire for peace and Moscow’s intentions. The United States may seek to end the war, while Putin seeks to destroy Ukrainian statehood. Ukrainians should have no illusions. No agreement that leaves Russia free to resume aggression will be a real peace. No ceasefire without reliable security guarantees will eliminate the threat. No territorial concession will satisfy the Kremlin’s imperial appetites.
We already know the price of Russian promises. We know how agreements that are not backed by real power end. And we know that Russian occupation means not just changing the flag over an administrative building, but repression, torture, deportation, destruction of Ukrainian culture and persecution of everything Ukrainian. Therefore, the conclusion from the next round of negotiations is simple: there will be no peace in the near future. At least a just and lasting peace, not a temporary pause before a new attack.
This does not mean that diplomacy is unnecessary. But it must be based on reality, not wishful thinking. Russia can only be forced to make peace when continuing the war becomes more costly and dangerous for it than ending it.
And therefore, Ukraine needs weapons, a strong army, its own military production, a stable economy, support from allies and maximum pressure on the aggressor. Not concessions to Putin, but an increase in the price of aggression. Not international recognition of the occupation, but a consistent policy of non-recognition. Not the abolition of sanctions, but their strengthening.
Our struggle continues not for more favorable terms of negotiations, but for the right of the Ukrainian people to their own state and their own future. And without a state and reliable mechanisms for its protection, Ukrainians as a nation are doomed to destruction. Therefore, we must continue the struggle, despite the betrayal of our allies!
