Ukraine’s release of Kherson and jubilant scenes of celebration in the streets of the newly liberated territory have rightly dominated headlines around the world.
Visiting Kherson, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine’s victory over Russia in the region represents “the beginning of the end of the war. “
Zelensky’s exaltation is understandable, but also premature. Despite successes on the battlefield and Ukraine’s recapture of more than a portion of the territory Russia had captured since its invasion in February, the end of the war is in sight in the near term. The liberation of the territory on the east bank of the Dnieper River remains a dangerously complicated task for the Ukrainian army.
Ukraine’s release of Kherson and jubilant scenes of celebration in the streets of the newly liberated territory have rightly dominated headlines around the world.
Visiting Kherson, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine’s victory over Russia in the region represents “the beginning of the end of the war. “
Zelensky’s exaltation is understandable, but also premature. Despite successes on the battlefield and Ukraine’s recapture of more than a portion of the territory Russia had captured since its invasion in February, the end of the war is in sight in the near term. The liberation of the territory on the east bank of the Dnieper River remains a dangerously complicated task for the Ukrainian army.
Ukraine’s battlefield successes have also begun to have an effect on lawmakers in the multinational coalition that offers Kyiv significant military, intelligence and logistical support.
However, far from reassuring Kiev’s supporters about Ukraine’s ability to liberate all of its occupied territory, diplomatic tension has set the stage for pushing Ukraine to negotiate with Russia. This is a mistake. As laudable as the purpose of peace may be, the only way to achieve peace is through Russia’s decisive defeat. Those who worry that Russia will be humiliated do not get the point: if Russia is not humiliated, it will inevitably withdraw again. the boasting of Kremlin spokesmen in Russian state media about this.
The most significant intervention on the subject came from the U. S. Army general. U. S. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this month that a winter pause in fighting in Ukraine could also lead to “a window of opportunity for negotiation. “He added: “There will have to be a mutual popularity that an army victory probably, in the true sense of the word, possibly cannot be achieved through the means of the army. “
A wave of diplomatic talks between Washington and an outraged Kyiv took a stand in the wake of the comments, with Washington assuring allies it was not aiming to pressure Zelensky to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin. That included Milley clarifying his comments last week, saying the U. S. “will continue to assist Ukraine for as long as it takes to keep them free” and that it’s up to Ukraine how, when or if it will negotiate with the Russians.
While there appears to be a significant shift in Washington’s approach, as the accusation of living and crises of power continue to plague Western capitals, pressure is mounting on Ukraine to seek a negotiated end to the war.
But Malley’s comments deserve to put an end to the misconception, complex across belligerent parties supporting the military, that members of the multinational coalition oppose negotiations or international relations with Russia. There have been repeated attempts at negotiation with Putin, both before and after the invasion. , and a continued emphasis on dialogue. The massive political push through French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz ahead of Russia’s invasion, going so far as to offer Putin assurances about Ukraine’s long-term relations with NATO, has been a heartbreaking party. in Western international relations.
Milley is the only voice in the negotiations. There is a concerted lobbying attempt in several Western capitals, especially through far-right and far-left politicians, to pressure Ukraine to participate in negotiations with Russia.
These come with figures like linguist Noam Chomsky and former British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn on the left, and Fox News host Tucker Carlson and U. S. senator-elect. U. S. J. D. Vance on the right. Although they do not contribute much more politically, everyone seems to agree that the West avoids arming Ukraine and pushes Kyiv to negotiate with Moscow.
It is not unexpected that figures like these, who echoed the Kremlin’s lies about NATO expansion and opposed arms transfers to Ukraine before the invasion, continue to do so even after Ukraine’s resistance proved so successful. But those calls have appeal beyond the margins of the left. and correct, and one that will have to be countered.
These attempts are largely focused on ending multilateralism for Ukraine’s war effort in order to force Kyiv to negotiate. They are divided into five key demands: a ceasefire, an end to aid, land for peace, an end to Russian sanctions and a ban. on Ukraine’s accession to NATO.
These may sound like calls for peace, but they are calls for Ukraine’s unilateral surrender, even as Ukraine continues to win surprising if costly victories. They are calling for Russia to be rewarded with stolen land and kidnap other people for its brutal invasion and achieve its geopolitical goals.
The genuine impediment to any negotiated settlement remains Russia, which only invaded Ukraine and committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Ukrainian people, but illegally annexed Ukrainian territory, which now claims to be part of the Russian Federation. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “They will be with Russia forever. “
Russia’s official position in the negotiations is that all Ukrainian land that it lately illegally controls through army aggression belongs to Russia in perpetuity, and the country even went so far as to amend the Russian Constitution to Ukrainian assets.
There is no explanation to think that Russia would keep the promises made. In Syria, it has negotiated ceasefires that it had no intention of respecting, adding to the bombing of a UN humanitarian aid convoy that Moscow had agreed to let into Aleppo. Moscow has also violated ceasefires in Ukraine. Russia’s torture of prisoners and revenge attacks on critical civilian infrastructure show that it has no respect for the laws of war. Rewarding it by crippling Ukraine’s resilience will only embolden long-term imperial ambitions.
Russia is defeated on the battlefield, and there is desperately little time to dig and build defenses in occupied territory. Ukrainian civilians are also massacred under Russian occupation. Each publication brings new news of Russian atrocities, from Bucha to Kherson. those living in occupied territory will only give Russia more time to terrorize or forcibly kidnap them and deport them to Russian territory.
Even if Ukraine and the foreign network turned around and surrendered to Russian territorial claims in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Donetsk at gunpoint, what explanation does Ukraine have for Russia not invading and trying to retake Kyiv?Russia has invaded Ukraine twice in the past decade. Why would this deal be any different, especially if Russia knows that others would possibly not come to Ukraine’s aid?
It is also time to reflect on the myriad explanations for why the Minsk agreements failed. While the foreign network has already heavily armed Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands, only to face a broader invasion less than a decade later, we cannot ask Ukraine to do the same today. Even the biggest supporters of the Minsk II agreement cannot deny that Putin himself tore up those agreements in February. There is no explanation for why accepting it as true now, especially after nine months of war.
Ukraine and its ers will have to constantly lie to Putin that he may try to do it again. Any viable and just settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian war will have to be subsidized through promises of security for Ukraine’s independence, whether this means a NATO club or any other arrangement. This means that if there is a next time, Ukraine will not fight alone. Ukraine’s opponents are inviting Russia to invade again.
The end of this war is very simple: Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Ukraine has no legal responsibility to satisfy the situations of this withdrawal, and Western capitals have no right to dictate such situations to Ukrainians. This is Ukraine’s starting point for negotiations, and those calling for international relations will have to pay attention to the Ukrainians.
You can’t go back to pre-war prestige. No blood can be shed. Pressuring Ukraine to stop at the territory would be a betrayal of a legal, humanitarian and political duty to fellow Ukrainians, and a guarantee for an emboldened, aggressive and murderous Russia. Moscow will have to realize that it has lost this war, otherwise the consequences of this invasion will be repeated again and again.
Oz Katerji is a British-Lebanese freelance journalist specialising in conflict, human rights and the Middle East.
Commenting on this and other recent articles is only part of a foreign policy subscription.
View comments
Join the verbal exchange on this and recent foreign policy articles when you subscribe now.
View comments
Follow our comment guidelines on the subject and be courteous, courteous, and respectful of the ideals of others.
The default username was generated with the first and first initial of your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not involve other offensive language.
By submitting yourArray, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and get correspondence from us. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Editor’s Pick
By submitting yourArray, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and get correspondence from us. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Your advisor of the maximum global stories of the day. Delivered from Monday to Friday.
Essential investigation of the narratives that the geopolitics of the continent. Delivered on Wednesday.
Unique compendium of politics, economy and culture. Delivered on Friday.
The latest news, research and knowledge from the country each and every week. Delivered on Wednesdays.
Weekly on progress in India and its neighbors. Delivered on Thursday.
Weekly update on what drives U. S. national security policyU. S. Delivered on Thursday.
An organized variety of our long readings. Delivered on Wednesdays and Sundays.
Summary of the night with our favorite stories from our editors of the day. Delivered from Monday to Saturday.
A monthly summary of the most productive articles read through FP subscribers.
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.
By registering, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and get special Foreign Policy benefits.
Registered
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.
By registering, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and get special Foreign Policy benefits.
Registered
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.