Latest news with #MinskI
The Sun
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
If everyone wants peace why is the war in Ukraine still raging? The answer is very simple
EVERYONE says they want peace, so why is the war still raging in Ukraine? The short answer is simple: Peace means very different things to very different people. 6 6 6 They have different goals and different motives. Vladimir Putin wants total conquest. And he wants to be remembered as a modern Tsar who restored Russia's imperial greatness. Ukraine wants to survive, as a sovereign independent nation. Europe wants a chastened Russia and peace that lasts beyond six months. Trump just wants a deal — any deal at any price — with minerals thrown in for good measure. He wants to claim the glory and perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize for sorting out the carnage which he sees as Barack Obama and Joe Biden 's mess. The American position is clear from the terrible deal they want Kyiv to accept. Their so-called seven-point peace plan would freeze the war on the current front lines and force Ukraine to surrender almost all of its occupied territories — some 44,000 square miles — with almost nothing in return. Spouted brazen lies That is an area the size of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is roughly 20 per cent of Ukraine's sovereign territory. In return, Russia would hand back small pockets of territory, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and give Ukraine unhindered access to the mouth of the River Dnieper. Life in Ukraine under Putin-Trump carve-up- Families wrenched apart and threat of execution in echo of post-WW2 Germany Moscow would also give up its ambitions to capture the parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces that its troops have been unable to take by force. But crucially, for Ukraine, there are no security guarantees. That means there is nothing to stop Russia catching its breath, rearming and invading again a few months or years later. Does that sound unlikely? It is precisely what has happened already. Moscow seized Crimea and parts of Donbas in 2014. Peace deals known as Minsk I and Minsk II were signed in 2014 and 2015 respectively. But they both lacked guarantees. The conflict was frozen at a lower intensity. Both sides accused each other of ceasefire violations, but there was nothing either side could do, save for complain or retaliate. Then Russia massed the best part of 200,000 troops along Ukraine's northern and eastern borders. The world watched in horror — and in disbelief — as Moscow spouted brazen lies that they had no plans to invade. The rest, we could say, is history. More than a million troops have been killed and maimed since Putin ordered his full-scale invasion, as have tens of thousands of civilians. Some 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly deported to Russia. And the world has grown tragically weary of Russian war crimes, be it prisoners of war horrifically castrated or the children's hospitals bombed. Only this week we saw Russia unleash one of the biggest bombardments of the war, with 215 drones and missiles. It left 12 people dead including three children. That is why Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine's no-nonsense economy minister, insisted that Kyiv was 'ready to negotiate but not to surrender'. She said: 'Our people will not accept a frozen conflict disguised as peace.' That is not just political rhetoric. It is a deeply held human yearning to live without the fear of slaughter and to sleep without the sound of air raid sirens. But if the deal was not bad enough already, the crowning insult to Ukraine is that America would legally recognise Russia's ownership of Crimea. Ukrainians are not stupid. They know that based on the current trajectory, they will have to trade land for peace. And they know that might include Crimea. But what do they get in return? 6 6 Legally, Crimea is unambiguously Ukrainian. It has been part of Ukraine since 1991 when the country gained its independence from the USSR. But Russia claims it is theirs since Catherine the Great seized it from the Ottomon Empire in 1783. Crimea is a jewel in both sides' crowns. Almost every Ukrainian family feels an emotional connection to its seaside holiday resorts. So do many Russians. But that is not why it matters. It is a hugely strategic peninsular that gives Russia a warm- water port, submarine berths and easy access to the Mediterranean. When Ukraine gained independence, Moscow leased back the Crimean port of Sevastopol. It continued to be the headquarters of Russia's Black Sea Fleet right up to the point that the fleet was forced to retreat by a country without a navy, a country Trump says has no cards. President Trump ranted at President Zelensky that 'Crimea was lost years ago'. Trump is right. Crimea was lost in 2014. But he has learnt the wrong lesson from history. Writing on Truth Social, he said: 'If he [Zelensky] wants Crimea, why didn't they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?' Why? Because America and the West refused to back Ukraine to wage a war against Russia. Nato was caught spectacularly off guard. They whined, but they did nothing. And that emboldened Putin. Putin saw the gap between our words and actions. He saw the West was afraid, or at best unwilling, to stand up to Russia. And so he had another go in 2022. That is why Lithuania, which feels the Russian threat acutely, said the American plan risked 'opening hell'. If Putin gets away with this, what is next? Good deals and bad deals The American plan rewards Russian warmongering. That will not just embolden Putin, it will embolden tyrants everywhere. China is watching. Taiwan, take note. That is why Britain, Ukraine, France and Germany have put forward an alternative. The European plan includes 'robust security guarantees' including from America, no restrictions on Ukraine's armed forces and no restrictions on the presence of friendly foreign forces in Ukraine. But it is only a plan. And disgracefully Donald Trump's envoys Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff were too busy to come to London this week when it was being discussed. (Witkoff was likely too busy preparing for his fourth face-to-face meeting with Putin.) Everyone says they want peace but Trump is the leader who has made it a priority. He said he would end the war in a day, then 100 days. That deadline is on Wednesday. He deserves to be applauded for trying to end the war. That is a truly noble aim. But what he needs to realise is that how the war ends matters. Just like with his New York real estate, there are good deals and there are bad deals. Russia must make concessions. So must Ukraine. The US and Nato allies must guarantee the peace. Otherwise it is not a peace, it is just a pause. And after the pause, it gets worse. 6
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
European Council president: ceasefire would only allow Russia to regroup and attack again
President of the European Council António Costa argues that a temporary halt in the war in Ukraine would just allow Russia to strengthen itself and launch another invasion, which would be a strategic mistake. Source: Costa in an interview with Antena 1, as reported by European Pravda, citing RTP Details: Costa acknowledged the efforts made by the United States to bring Russia to the negotiating table but noted, "Russia did not fulfil what was agreed in Budapest, nor what was agreed in Minsk I or Minsk II. Let's see if it fulfils what is agreed now." Quote: "What really matters is a just and lasting peace. If this is the way forward, great. Let's hope for it." Details: However, he emphasised that a ceasefire allowing Russia to regroup and launch another attack would be a strategic mistake. Background: On 19 March, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that he and Trump had agreed to discuss the technical details of a partial ceasefire – halting strikes on energy and civilian infrastructure. Trump stated that his talks with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin and then with Zelenskyy were "two very good conversations". Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Al Jazeera
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
A flawed peace deal would not end the war in Ukraine
Today, we mark three years of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For three years, the Ukrainian people have demonstrated remarkable resilience, foiling Russian plans to conquer Kyiv and forcing its army to retreat from Kharkiv and Kherson. Ukrainians continue to resist against the onslaught of the Russian army, but the war has inevitably entered a grinding phase in which every territorial gain comes at an enormous cost, testing Ukraine's endurance and the West's willingness to maintain support. At this critical stage, a new administration in the United States has signalled a dramatic shift in its policy on Ukraine, demanding that a swift peace agreement be reached. Last week, US and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia for direct negotiations without Ukraine at the table. This meeting and the rhetoric coming from Washington have raised fears that President Donald Trump's administration is laying the groundwork for broader concessions in the name of de-escalation with Russia. For Ukraine, the fundamental issue is not whether diplomacy should be pursued – any war eventually ends at the negotiating table – but what terms those negotiations will involve. If the priority is simply to stop the fighting as quickly as possible, there is a risk of Ukraine being pressured into accepting a settlement that does not address its long-term security concerns and that temporarily freezes the war rather than putting an end to it. Recent history provides a clear warning against such flawed 'peacemaking'. In February 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and occupied it; two months later, its troops along with local pro-Russia forces launched an operation in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region, taking control of some territory. In August, Kyiv was forced into negotiations brokered by France and Germany that aimed to put a stop to the fighting under unfavourable terms. What came to be known as the Minsk I agreement, signed in September of that year, lasted no more than six months. In January 2015, forces loyal to Moscow and regular Russian army units renewed their attacks on Ukraine to force it into more concessions. In February 2015, what came to be known as the Minsk II agreement was negotiated and signed, stipulating that Kyiv had to recognise the 'special status' of two regions in the Donbas in effect occupied by Russia. The Minsk agreements ultimately failed to secure a durable peace. Structured to freeze the conflict rather than resolve it, they allowed Russia to consolidate control over the occupied territories while keeping Ukraine politically and militarily constrained. Moscow never adhered to its commitments, using the diplomatic process to buy time, regroup and prepare for further aggression. The failed Minsk agreements serve as a cautionary tale: Settlements that ignore Ukraine's security realities and societal expectations do not lead to lasting peace but merely postpone the next conflict. Any settlement must reflect the will of the people who have endured this war for three years. Polls conducted in Ukraine show clearly what the Ukrainians want. War fatigue is real, as illustrated by a poll conducted by Gallup in November, in which 52 percent of respondents said they supported negotiations. However, when it comes to any territorial concessions, only 27 percent said Ukraine should consider such a step. A clear majority of Ukrainians reject giving up any land as part of a peace agreement. These figures highlight an inescapable political reality: There is no broad support in Ukraine for a peace agreement that legitimises Russian territorial gains. Any Ukrainian leadership attempting to negotiate such terms would face enormous public pressure. And even if an agreement were reached at the diplomatic level, attempts to implement it would be met with fierce resistance domestically. That is why US and other Western policymakers advocating for an expedited resolution cannot ignore the will of the Ukrainian people. If they do want a peace deal to hold, they should consider continuing support for the Ukrainian army. Ukraine's ability to negotiate from a position of strength depends on continued military success and a unified stance from its allies. In making decisions on their Ukraine policy, Western countries should not fall for Russia's flawed narrative. Moscow has been trying to create the illusion of strength while concealing its growing vulnerabilities. Russian officials have insisted the Russian economy is stable despite sanctions, their military operations are sustainable and time is on their side. At the Riyadh talks, Russian representatives reportedly suggested that businesses in Moscow are thriving, restaurants are full and only Western economies are suffering from prolonged engagement in Ukraine. The message was clear: Russia can fight for as long as it takes while the West faces diminishing returns. This framing has led some in the West to conclude that a quick peace deal – one based on Ukrainian concessions – may be the most pragmatic way forward. But it is not. Appeasing Russia would only increase its appetite for more aggression. The way to guarantee peace in Ukraine is by setting up a robust post-war security framework. Whether through NATO integration, bilateral defence agreements or a structured European-led security framework, Ukraine needs concrete security commitments. If these are absent in any peace settlement, the risk of renewed conflict would remain high. The coming months will be critical as Washington reassesses its role in Ukraine. While much is unknown, one reality is clear: Ukraine's fight is not only about reclaiming lost territory but also about ensuring that its sovereignty is no longer in question. Whether Western policy continues to align with that goal or shifts towards a more transactional approach will shape the next phase of the war.
