Seeking Compromise is a Dead End. The Path to Peace is the Destruction of the Russian War Machine
We will try to understand the political statements, plans to end the war, and intricacies around Ukraine. From Putin's last warning –"Oreshnik", calls and Scholz's arrival, to the actions of Trump's new team – advisors and representatives of the Ukrainian plan, with whom Yermak went to meet in the USA, and statements by Ukrainian authorities. What should we pay attention to? What do these events mean and what is key in them? What are the main actors telling each other and us?
I'll start with a basic conclusion that I have formulated over 2022-2024. The longer the Russian-Ukrainian war continues, the longer the West delays aid to Ukraine and the more indecisive it behaves, the more opportunities Putin has to stay in power and kindle wars in various hot spots.
Biden had chances to make aid to Ukraine more massive, particularly in 2022 during the liberation of Kherson, the Kharkiv operation. The USA and NATO had these chances in 2023 as well, but did not provide proper assistance, and our counteroffensive failed.
As a result, the situation reached the US elections and Trump's victory. Now expectations are much more alarming than they could have been if our Western partners had given us the volume of assistance Ukraine needed in 2022-2023. It is clearly visible: the longer this war continues, the more fires are started in various points of the globe.
It all began with the escalation of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis, which will flare up. Then there was North Korea, Venezuela - we will potentially have this hot spot as well. Then there were Iran, Syria, events in Georgia. Now a coup in South Korea, where martial law was announced and canceled within six hours.
A military solution to the Russian-Ukrainian war is needed. There is no other way. No diplomatic solution - this is an illusion. This war can have a diplomatic conclusion. But there is no diplomatic resolution through seeking some compromise, as Trump thinks. Because this war has an existential character. Russia, North Korea, China, Iran - the axis of evil that everyone talks about - uses this war of attrition. The time the West gives Russia goes to igniting new hot spots that further complicate the situation.
Read also: «Russians want to destroy the identity of your cities», – a studio talk with Paris’ main architect
At the beginning of 2022, many thought that Russia's attack on Ukraine was a local conflict in Eastern Europe, although we said this war immediately had a global dimension. Now, by the end of the third year, we see that we only gave Putin the opportunity to find new allies, include new possibilities, put the economy on a war footing, and pump it with money from oil revenues. We have a war that now has no visible resolution - neither military nor diplomatic. On the threshold of 2025, we find ourselves in a situation of complete uncertainty. And this is a problem.
The main responsibility for translating the situation into a war of attrition due to an indecisive position and lack of leadership lies with our Western partners, primarily NATO.
Western partners officially allowed Ukraine to strike their long-range weapons on Russian territory, and Russia used the "Oreshnik". Now some, including France, have again started discussing the introduction of their limited contingent on Ukrainian territory. Is this a dialogue and a threat to each other? How will the situation develop further?
To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised by Biden's decision after the Democratic Party's defeat in the elections. He unexpectedly gave permission to strike with long-range weapons. But I see at least two buts. First, this permission may be canceled on January 20, 2025, with Trump's full inauguration. Second, this permission sounds good. But we do not know if there are ATACMS missiles that they allowed to shoot at Russian territory, and how many there are.
A positive fact is that the French and British followed the US and gave such permission for Storm Shadow / SCALP, but we also do not know their quantity.
One thing is when there are enough missiles for one salvo. Ukraine seems to have already made two such salvos very successfully. At military decision-making centers, warehouses, and the airfield in Dyagilevo. If such a strategy had been consistent in 2022-2024, there would now be no possibilities for their aviation and effective command of troops in the European part of Russia.
And now Trump will come, and he can not only stop this permission but also completely revise economic and military aid to Ukraine. I'm not saying that the US will completely shut off the tap, but he can significantly reduce assistance, at least in the initial period.
Biden signed a decision to allocate $24 billion to Ukraine, but Speaker Johnson said he does not see the need to bring this to approval, as this will already be the new president's matter. It looks like Ukraine will not see this money, or decisions on it will not be made, at least until the end of January.
Johnson quite logically replied to him, saying, "Man, you're already finishing your cadence, let's figure it out ourselves." This is Biden's attempt to end his cadence on a positive note, to sweeten his rather indecisive, cautious position of preventing escalation, managing the Russian-Ukrainian war as Biden imagined. He believes that he did not allow an increase in the threat of World War III. But this is questionable. In my opinion, it either increased this threat or simply masked it.
We must thank the Americans and NATO for the help they provided. But they had opportunities an order of magnitude greater. This could have already given us a different picture in the course of the Russian-Ukrainian war, a turning point in Ukraine's favor.
This looks more like a conversation and hints rather than real decisions. If there is no Western weapons, then permission to strike Russian territory is a political declaration. Putin launches a missile, calls it "Oreshnik" and hints: "Just in case, I have opportunities." The West responds: "And we have the opportunity to introduce troops." It seems like a dialogue about a potentially possible development of further hostilities.
This is the most likely version. It all resembles verbal information duels, at best some diplomatic skirmish that raises the temperature in words, but there are no real actions behind this yet. Military experts say Russia does not even have a tenth of "Oreshnik". When our missile experts were asked, it turned out that from a three-stage intercontinental missile, the Russians made a two-stage one that flies 5,500 kilometers. They loaded and launched it even without a conventional warhead. They filled it less, so the range is shorter. And this is supposedly a signal: "We can reach Europe." And Putin probably did not have the courage to launch a three-stage missile that flies to America.
America is taboo. This is an attempt to split the Western world, to scare America. It shows limitation. Neither the West in its decision to allow long-range weapons and not provide enough missiles, nor Putin are ready for real escalation. Behind the changes in Russia's nuclear doctrine and "Oreshnik" is 70-80% blackmail, not a real action. 20% may be a real action if Russia has the courage to attack NATO member countries. But Putin does not have it. Therefore, I consider this an attempt to scare Europe, split the West into America, which the missile does not reach, and Europe, which it does reach. And most importantly, to scare Ukraine: "I am scarier than ever. If you do not kneel now, I will turn all your cities to ashes."
A blackmailer's threat must always be answered with a blow to the nose - this is a life rule. There is no other way to put a blackmailer in their place. Otherwise, they will scare and paralyze you. Putin's actions must be responded to by increasing the possibilities of strikes on Russian territory with Western missiles many times over. I hope in 2025 we will have Ukrainian cruise missiles and ballistics. We must continue to destroy this entire Russian war machine, at least in the European part of Russia. This is the path to ending the war and sustainable peace. Everything else is from the evil one.
All attempts at compromise that Biden and his advisors draw in their heads are a fantasy without a real basis. Trump now thinks he can negotiate with Putin, he needs to be given a chance to go through this path. Understanding the illusory nature of seeking compromise may take half a year or a year. But this is definitely a dead end, a path to nowhere. And the West does not understand this. Putin has long crossed all red lines. He has stoked his military economy over three years so that now he cannot stop it, even if he wanted to. It is impossible to stop it with one blow.
This economy will work on producing weapons that Putin will wage war with. He is not working for a warehouse, is he?
If everyone is forced to cease hostilities, he will replenish reserves.
Ceasefire on the existing front line, but not recognizing occupied territories. Who benefits from this? Putin. In half a year to a year, he will replenish everything that the Ukrainian army has destroyed in three years. And can the Ukrainian economy replenish its reserves? Will the West increase its military assistance to Ukraine?
It might be: "Okay, stop shooting. So Ukraine doesn't need more weapons. We are not giving anything." But in reality, it is needed.
Moreover, as some of Trump's advisors suggest, sanctions should even start to be lifted. This story is about appeasing the aggressor and nothing more. Putin will only thank him. He will agree to a ceasefire without stopping the war machine. And after some time, he will blame Ukraine for all mortal sins and start a new phase of the war.
Analysts' proposals do not include Putin and Russia's obligation to cancel illegal decisions about including Ukrainian territories in the constitution. No one is talking about this. But without this, Putin can act according to his documents at any time.
And this is a casus belli for him. That is, Ukraine is doomed to militarization in any case. We must become a militarily thinking society to have the ability to constantly defend ourselves and be ready to repel attacks.
Yes, so a hypothetical return to the 1991 border does not remove the issue of the Russian threat. The issue of militarization might not have been as acute as in Israel if the final end of the Russian-Ukrainian war was not only a return to the 1991 border but also a change of political regime in Russia and the realization of the right to self-determination by the enslaved peoples of the Russian Federation.
But in the West, they are afraid of not even the collapse of Russia, but even a change of regime. Conversations with Western partners show that they are not ready for this, they want only to calm Putin down, believing that his behavior is beyond normality. But this is his normality.
If the West's strategic approach does not change, Ukraine is doomed to militarization. This must be frankly discussed with Ukrainian society. There should be a version of not only prioritizing the development of its own military-industrial complex but also militarization of society: military education and training, transition to a professional army, a system of general reserve training for both sexes. We need to teach the most elementary skills that should be known during a possible future war.
I am a supporter of another option. With my modest capabilities, I am trying to convince the West that the best way out is to change the political regime in Russia, some form of democratization of the empire that will allow Russians to build their national state, and enslaved peoples to form their own, hypothetically friendly to Ukraine.
This scenario is theoretically possible, but now it especially certainly depends on what will happen in Armenia, Georgia. Belarus had an opportunity, and may have another after the elections. But how to assess the current events in Georgia? Is this a turning point? Will Georgia go towards Russia as planned, or will it be able to break free, hold the next elections, or follow the president?
I sincerely hope that the Georgian opposition will win. That the Georgian Maidan will prevail and Ivanishvili will be removed from power. Although the situation is 50-50.
Georgian society is divided. I follow the news from Tbilisi every day. So far, Georgians are holding on, protests continue. But they should become more massive, persistent, and brave. I say this as a person who was directly involved in all Ukrainian Maidans.
But it looks like Ivanishvili, with Russia's help, is going for the most hardcore option.
He is going all the way. Perhaps his behavior will be harsher than Yanukovych's in 2013-2014. And Russia is also going all in. For Putin, Ivanishvili's defeat in Georgia is losing virtually the entire Caucasus. About Armenians, we won't even talk. Most likely, then the issue of Abkhazia, Ossetia, the entire North Caucasus with Chechnya, Dagestan becomes a huge problem for Russia. This is the expulsion of Russia from the Caucasus, and later from the Kuban territory.
Even if Ivanishvili does not leave himself, Russia has the opportunity to do so through its agents. Remember how it was on the Maidan. So I do not know how it will end in Georgia.
But this battlefield might not have existed if the Russian-Ukrainian war had ended with Ukraine's victory in 2022. The Georgian opposition would have had much more chances to win peacefully through parliamentary means. There might not have been Syria and many other things if the West had shown global leadership and put Putin in his place back in 2022.
2008 was also a landmark year. If Angela Merkel had not shown a desire to help Russia and do everything to avoid inviting Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, everything could have changed.
Perhaps there would have been no Georgia. No annexation of Crimea, no Russian-Ukrainian war. And these pale excuses that Angela Merkel presented to Western society in her memoirs look ugly. We were in parliament when Yushchenko went to Bucharest. And from Yushchenko's advisors, I know the course of his conversation with Merkel. Victor Andriyovych directly asked her: "Why are you against our NATO membership?" She directly replied to him: "Because your NATO membership from the point of view of German security is worse for us than your non-membership."
Putin simply threatened her: "If you vote, I will do something to you Germans that you cannot even imagine." He simply scared Merkel. I will not go further. Many talk about who she is and what her youth was like in the GDR. She was simply afraid then, and this is the price of fear.
I call this a lack of leadership. In 2008, Putin was not as strong and brave as in 2014. And in 2014, he was not as he became in 2022. But the West appeased him in 2008, 2014, and even in 2021, when Biden met with him in Geneva and tried to appease him. And half a year later, the war began.
Mobilization, increasing the recruitment base, and lowering the conscription age, which Blinken has repeatedly talked about, are also related to weapons and partners. Yes, we need mobilized people to fight. But opposing Russia's people one to one is a path to nowhere. This is precisely a matter of weapons. This dialogue or monologue needs to be translated into the sphere of technological weapons. If there is enough weapons that allow 10 Ukrainians to fight against 100 or 1000 Russians, then this will be our chance for victory and the West's chance.
I do not understand why Blinken says something that does not correspond to reality. For Ukraine, there is no need to lower the mobilization age, and he knows this perfectly well. President Zelenskyy correctly replied to Blinken that we do not have weapons to arm the already mobilized. According to bodies responsible for mobilization, under current legislation, we still have a resource of 3.5 million. Why lower the mobilization age, shifting from a sick head to a healthy one and looking for a problem where there is none?
Ukraine well understands where to get resources for mobilization within the current age limits of 25-60 years. Plus, there are internal affairs bodies, 300,000 police officers. We have sources to recruit those Ukrainian citizens who are needed for the reserve. But we cannot linearly chase Russia in human resources; this is a losing strategy. We must outweigh them many times in technology. And the West could provide us with much more assistance, but it thinks in post-imperial stereotypes. It treats Russia as a great power that accidentally got President Putin. The West does not realize that this is the norm for Russia, so it invents excuses: about lowering the mobilization age for Ukrainians, that Russia cannot be touched because if it collapses and Putin is removed from power, nuclear potential will spread.
The West perfectly knows that all nuclear weapons are located in five subjects of the Russian Federation on Russian territory. There are no Russian nuclear arsenals in Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, or the Caucasus. Therefore, there will be no proliferation of nuclear weapons when Putin is replaced by another leader. They are lying to us and the world.
Such an ugly behavior will cost the West dearly. Sooner or later, the West will do everything Ukraine asks for, but when it and Ukraine will be in much worse conditions. Plus, the West will pay much more for it. I’m not talking about direct involvement in the war, although I don’t rule that out either. But the policy of indecision, of preventing the escalation from increasing, brings closer a global conflict rather than reducing its likelihood. There’s a chance that Trump, if he sits in the White House again, will quickly understand this. Then the situation might unexpectedly turn towards Ukraine.
Talked to Serhiy Smirnov
Text: Marichka Il'ina
Full or partial republication of the text without the written consent of the editors is prohibited and considered a violation of copyright.
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram. Lviv Now is an English-language website for Lviv, Ukraine’s «tech-friendly cultural hub.» It is produced by Tvoe Misto («Your City») media-hub, which also hosts regular problem-solving public forums to benefit the city and its people.